As wikipedia grows and evolves, standards will change, hopefully become clearer, and in some cases, I think, should become more stringent. I think this is the case with original research. The Apple Pie article is informative and well-written -- and does have some outside links. But if as we grow we want to be taken seriously, claims about the gendered nature of "American as apple pie" need to be sourced. The fact is, there are sources out there. For our articles not to provide sources accomplishes two negative things. First, it makes our editors appear lazy, as we are unwilling to do a little more work to acknowledge where our analysis comes from. Second, it makes wikipedia less useful as a gateway to further research.
That said, the article is primarily about an object and does not involve much interpretation or analysis. As I read others' views and see more examples, my view is starting to firm up as this: if the article makes no interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims, it can rely on primary sources (and thus, be a secondary source). But if the article is to make interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims, it must rely on secondary sources (and thus, be a tertiary source).
Re: The league of distinguished gentlemen. I agree strongly with John. I disagree with Charles, who writes "It's a kind of goofy pedantic point that personal knowledge of something should be disqualified." On the contrary, this is what rules like "no original research" or "no personal essays" is all about. Look, lets say I am a particle physicist and I have conducted research on muons and want to write the Wikipedia article on muons. I should still have to back up my claims with references to published work. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a substitute for a journal or newspaper.
Steve
Message: 3 Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:57:06 -0500 From: Delirium delirium@hackish.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] original research To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 41B4B992.2080000@hackish.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Charles Matthews wrote:
Take [[apple pie]], which cites an original source. WP doesn't need to police whether the conclusions drawn are safely derivative or not. (That's apple sauce - sorry.) Any more than if I wander around Cambridge and see something encyclopedic, I need first to check that it's in a guidebook.
Yeah, this is somewhat of a tricky issue. My personal barometer is that if I'm documenting facts with a minimum of interpretation, then all I need is some reference for the facts. But if I'm making an interpretation, I try to confine it to interpretations that have been made before, rather than trying to synthesize primary sources myself.
In a few cases, like [[industrial music]], there's no authoritative scholarship in the field (indeed, very little scholarship at all), so some amount of original research contentiously creeps in, but there's still an attempt to document "prevailing opinion", as far as information on it can be found, and trying as much as possible to avoid making novel musicological arguments and categorizations.
-Mark
Message: 5 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 08:37:59 -0800 From: Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] original research To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 41B5DC67.8000609@epoptic.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I have recently noticed another form of what I consider to be "original research," and I'd like to see if the consensus agrees with me.
The article [[The League of Distinguished Gentlemen]] purports to describe a secret society at Creighton University. It clearly was written by the secret society himself and is currently listed for deletion. A popular reason given in the votes for deletion is "unverifiable," the rebuttal to which is "you can't verify it because it's a /truly/ secret secret society!"
All of which is only mildly amusing, but did lead me to contemplate the possibility of a /real/ truly secret secret society. Even if such an Illuminatus really did exist, and someone really were able to penetrate it, it seems to me that the resulting exposé would be original research, and not appropriate for Wikipedia.
Thus, it seems to me that all unverifiable claims about secret societies are logically either (A) untrue, in which case they should be deleted, or (2) true, in which case they are original research and should be deleted.
Comments?
-- Sean Barrett | Remember your priorities. Draining the sean@epoptic.com | swamp will take care of the alligators.
Message: 6 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:22:05 -0000 From: "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] original research To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 004c01c4dc81$4749b040$9e7c0450@Galasien Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sean Barrett wrote
Even if such an Illuminatus really did exist, and someone really were able to penetrate it, it seems to me that the resulting exposé would be original research, and not appropriate for Wikipedia.
Think we should stick with 'Original research' being an 'argument to delete', and not a 'proof of non-encyclopedic nature'. It's a kind of goofy pedantic point that personal knowledge of something should be disqualified.
Charles
Message: 7 Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 01:43:48 +0800 From: John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] original research To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 41B5EBD4.3050802@gawab.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Publish a book about it. If the society is interesting enough to be of note, sufficient pop culture should arise surrounding it to justify an article.
The incident you mention is indeed original rsearch - that is why we need an external source. Original research cannot be verified - that is why we need an external source. The inclusionists harp on it - "But it's VERIFIABLE! We gotta' keep it!" Without a source not from Wikipedia, this is not verifiable at all.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701