The boundaries of OR (contd)

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Rotten tomatoes invited

Re: [WikiEN-l] Statistics prove it!

zero 0000

19 Dec 2006 19 Dec '06

3:28 p.m.

Thanks for everyone's replies. I'll make a few comments. 1. The legal database (more properly, collection of legal journals) I was using when the question came up was HeinOnLine. In my small city, it is available in one public library and two university libraries. I'm sure the access is similar in other cities. Similar resources like Lexis are also widely available in public libraries. So I don't think availability is an issue. 2. Jay is quite correct to discourage weasel words like "probably". For one thing, it prevents objective verification. 3. Sarah points out the following text from WP:NOR : "anyone--without specialist knowledge--who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." That seems to be broken. Examples of specialist knowledge which might be required are the ability to read a foreign language and the ability to understand mathematical notation. Someone who can read music should be able to report from a musical score that it is in E-flat, even though that requires specialist knowledge. What the policy *should* require (somehow) is that anyone who can read music will agree that the score is in E-flat. The fundamental skills of the field should be assumed, and the policy should reflect that, imo. 4. Sarah wrote: "We use writers as sources, not databases and libraries." Nobody suggested libraries. I don't see that databases are excluded by any existing policy, provided that the process of extraction of the information from the database is verifiable. Suppose I have a book about a serial killer, which lists all the victims one by one. I think it is perfectly ok to write "all the victims were women" after looking up each case in the book. It comes under "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged."(WP:NOR) I can't see how that is different *in principle* from reporting that all the articles on a particular subject in a particular database give the same story about something, provided that that observation is one that anyone can verify. Of course this criterion might not always be satisfied, but that shouldn't eliminate the cases where it is. Zero. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Show replies by thread

Steve Bennett

20 Dec 20 Dec

1:18 a.m.

On 12/20/06, zero 0000 <nought_0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

...

Someone who can read music should be able to report from a musical score that it is in E-flat, even though that requires specialist knowledge. What the policy *should* require (somehow) is that anyone who can read music will agree that the score is in E-flat. The fundamental skills of the field should be assumed, and the policy should reflect that, imo.

Not for all music. There are scores for which it requires more than trivial music knowledge to know whether it's C major, A minor or atonal. But I'm quibbling :)

...

More generally: We can use *anything* as a source. We just have to use each source for the *right purpose*. You wouldn't use even the most detailed academic research paper by the most respected researcher on molecular biology to back up a statement about Pokemon. And it's perfectly acceptable to use a cheap trashy blog as a source to back up the statement "as Smith himself wrote...". So there are no good sources and bad sources - just misuses of sources.

...

Suppose I have a book about a serial killer, which lists all the victims one by one. I think it is perfectly ok to write "all the victims were women" after looking up each case in the book.

You can cite the book, and even page numbers, so yeah.

...

It comes under "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged."(WP:NOR) I can't see how that is different *in principle* from reporting that all the articles on a particular subject in a particular database give the same story about something, provided that that observation is one that anyone can verify. Of course this criterion might not always be satisfied, but that shouldn't eliminate the cases where it is.

All these things are sliding scales. It's easy to objectively say "all the victims were women". It's just *harder* to objectively say "all the papers supported notion X". Maybe it's ok. Maybe it isn't. Steve

Matthew Brown

5:06 a.m.

On 12/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

For one thing, if a source exhaustively lists all X, it's a definitive claim that can be sourced. Stating that all of them have something in common is simply a collation and editing function, IMO. A database search like that described is different; it's not definitive and not a single source that can be cited. It's headed into original research to deem the results definitive and decisive; there is no guarantee whatsoever that the results have to be exhaustive and complete. -Matt

Thomas Dalton

2:35 p.m.

...

3. Sarah points out the following text from WP:NOR : "anyone--without specialist knowledge--who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." That seems to be broken. Examples of specialist knowledge which might be required are the ability to read a foreign language and the ability to understand mathematical notation. Someone who can read music should be able to report from a musical score that it is in E-flat, even though that requires specialist knowledge. What the policy *should* require (somehow) is that anyone who can read music will agree that the score is in E-flat. The fundamental skills of the field should be assumed, and the policy should reflect that, imo.

I agree, that needs to be changed, but I'm not sure what to. We need to define what kind of specialist knowledge is ok, and what isn't. For example, is being able to speak Latin acceptable specialist knowledge to use, basically meaning Latin speakers can translate the primary source in the article? (It's definately preferable to cite a translation, but if there isn't one, it may or may not be ok for a Wikipedian to translate it, we need to decide.)

...

4. Sarah wrote: "We use writers as sources, not databases and libraries." Nobody suggested libraries. I don't see that databases are excluded by any existing policy, provided that the process of extraction of the information from the database is verifiable. Suppose I have a book about a serial killer, which lists all the victims one by one. I think it is perfectly ok to write "all the victims were women" after looking up each case in the book. It comes under "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged."(WP:NOR) I can't see how that is different *in principle* from reporting that all the articles on a particular subject in a particular database give the same story about something, provided that that observation is one that anyone can verify. Of course this criterion might not always be satisfied, but that shouldn't eliminate the cases where it is.

The key point here is that your source for the statement that all the papers say the same thing isn't just the papers, it's the database. If there is a way to reliable cite the database, rather than just the sources it contains (a link to the search results page, perhaps), then it might be ok, but just citing the papers definately isn't.

Andrew Gray

3:15 p.m.

On 20/12/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Mmm. Let's say there is a significant Russian novel - significant but obscure. No English translation has been made; English scholarship on it is basically limited to recognising it exists. But there are plenty of Russian sources. Should enwiki have an article on this work? (The answer, of course, is "yes" - for the benefit of English-speaking students of Russian literature. Our policies should never prohibit us doing transformative work like telling speakers of one language what a source in another language says - because if we don't allow that, we're going to have crazily crippled encyclopedias for smaller third-world languages...)

...

A while back I wrote about a self-publicising vanity author. One of the details I'd liked to have note was the complete (or near-complete) absence of his books in public library catalogues, but it's almost impossible to actually find a way to cite a "negative search" much less a positive result... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Thomas Dalton

3:27 p.m.

...

Indeed, that would end up being OR - quite simple OR, but OR all the same. It's annoying when you know something that apparently no-one has published, but there isn't much we can do about it. (Unless you happen to be an expert on the subject and can publish it yourself)

The Cunctator

3:35 p.m.

On 12/20/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

> 3. Sarah points out the following text from WP:NOR : > "anyone--without specialist knowledge--who reads the > primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia > passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation > of primary source material requires a secondary source." > That seems to be broken. Examples of specialist knowledge > which might be required are the ability to read a foreign > language and the ability to understand mathematical notation. > > Someone who can read music should be able to report from > a musical score that it is in E-flat, even though that requires > specialist knowledge. What the policy *should* require > (somehow) is that anyone who can read music will agree that > the score is in E-flat. The fundamental skills of the field > should be assumed, and the policy should reflect that, imo.

In all seriousness, I think the policy should be that any special knowledge needed to understand the article should be included somewhere in Wikipedia. For example, the above knowledge is included at [[key signature]] and at [[E-flat major]]. Thus if the example article read "The [[key (music)|key]] of the score is [[E-flat major]]<ref>[link to score]</ref>..." Any person with the knowledge contained at those links would be able to understand the reference.

Thomas Dalton

3:43 p.m.

...

In all seriousness, I think the policy should be that any special knowledge needed to understand the article should be included somewhere in Wikipedia.

So foreign language sources are out, then? I think that's a good guideline in a lot of situations, but not all... some types of specialist knowledge aren't the kinds of things you find in an encyclopedia.

Steve Bennett

21 Dec 21 Dec

12:34 a.m.

On 12/21/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

If that is OR then WP:NOR is a broken rule. Steve

Thomas Dalton

12:24 p.m.

...

If that is OR then WP:NOR is a broken rule.

Obvious question: How do we fix it?

jayjg

9:05 p.m.

On 12/21/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

If that is OR then WP:NOR is a broken rule.

Obvious question: How do we fix it?

Obvious answer; it's not broken, and it doesn't need fixing. I'm not sure why you would need to "note" this point anyway. Jay.

Ray Saintonge

10:25 p.m.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

The development of translations is one of the aims of Wikisource. If we do not allow foreign language references we are cutting off a significant body of information. At one time Latin was the lingua franca of the educated, much as English has assumed that role in modern times. In a broader sense if en:wp does not allow foreign language quotes so too would the other language projects be unable to quote English language sources. The potential result of that boggles the mind. Perhaps we are confusing special knowledge and specialist knowledge. Knowing a foreign language does not imply any specialist knowledge except in matters about the language, not about specialist subjects in that language. Indeed, ordinary speakers of the language may understand an article about physics or music in their own language no better than you understand an article about physics or music in English. Citing the original is preferable to citing a translation, because the translation only adds a further level of uncertainty. This doesn't help those who don't understand the source language. Perhaps both need to be there so that the reader may compare if he is so willing and able. The person who translated Sherlock Holmes' "last bow" into French as his "dernier coup d'archet" failed to distinguish between the use of a "bow" on stage and in archery. The translation may very well be original. Ec

Ray Saintonge

10:32 p.m.

Andrew Gray wrote:

...

On 20/12/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

In law this ties in closely to the presumption of innocence. The primary burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, not on the one denying it. Perhaps we should have a stock of boilerplate phrases to express negative search results. Ec

Ray Saintonge

10:39 p.m.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

You can't make the real problem in an article go away by writing the letters "OR" on a post-it note, and sticking it on. That's being simplistic. Ec

Thomas Dalton

11:01 p.m.

...

You can't make the real problem in an article go away by writing the letters "OR" on a post-it note, and sticking it on. That's being simplistic.

Some problems can't be solved. If there is no published research on a particular matter, it can't be included in a wikipedia article, however much it would add to that article.

phoebe ayers

22 Dec 22 Dec

1:47 a.m.

On 12/19/06, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 12/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Well stated; there's also another difference -- the contents of databases change. The printed list of serial killers will always be the same in that particular book; the database search may yield different results next year. As for availability, I don't know about HeinOnline, but there are different subsets of LexisNexis and most folks other than lawyers and law students don't have access to the really good and expensive one. Two more notes: I don't know if there's specific protocol for legal databases; generally one cites a DB search with the name of the database, date of search, and your search string: "(au=brown) and (wd="serial killer*")". As for the not-finding-anything search... notoriously hard to prove or do definitively, yes. A very similar question was given to us in library school as homework :) -- phoebe

Ken Arromdee

5:04 a.m.

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

You can't make the real problem in an article go away by writing the letters "OR" on a post-it note, and sticking it on. That's being simplistic.

Some problems can't be solved. If there is no published research on a particular matter, it can't be included in a wikipedia article, however much it would add to that article.

I believe the solution is [[WP:IAR]]. Of course, if a particular problem requires IAR too many times, it's best fixing the rules instead.

Ray Saintonge

6:46 a.m.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

You can't make the real problem in an article go away by writing the letters "OR" on a post-it note, and sticking it on. That's being simplistic.

Some problems can't be solved. If there is no published research on a particular matter, it can't be included in a wikipedia article, however much it would add to that article.

We can do better than depend on such tautologies. Like other negative statements denying the existence of something, it is just as difficult to establish that adequate sources do not exist. Sometimes the research needs to be pulled together from a range of sources. If we find a statement to be inadequately sourced our first obligation should be to seek sources from one or more places. To use NOR as a bare tool to excuse the omission of information is a perversion of the basis for having that guideline in the first place. Ec

Ray Saintonge

7:42 a.m.

phoebe ayers wrote:

...

The printed list of serial killers will always be the same in that particular book; the database search may yield different results next year. As for availability, I don't know about HeinOnline, but there are different subsets of LexisNexis and most folks other than lawyers and law students don't have access to the really good and expensive one. Two more notes: I don't know if there's specific protocol for legal databases; generally one cites a DB search with the name of the database, date of search, and your search string: "(au=brown) and (wd="serial killer*")". As for the not-finding-anything search... notoriously hard to prove or do definitively, yes. A very similar question was given to us in library school as homework :)

Perhaps then you're in a better position to provide guidance on how to deal with unsuccessful searches. ;-) A search that yields nothing does not imply that nothing exists. Maybe the searcher is looking in the wrong library or database. If we are dealing with material that is difficult to verify it seems more honest to admit, "We have been unable to find sources to verify this after looking in these places," than to suppress the claims altogether. The outright deletion imposes a bias on the subject, perhaps out of ignorance. Stating that we have thus far found nothing after a search of specified sources leaves open the possibility that another editor may have access to other as yet untried sources. To be sure there can be overriding considerations such as defamatory comments. Ec

Ray Saintonge

8:10 a.m.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

In all seriousness, I think the policy should be that any special knowledge needed to understand the article should be included somewhere in Wikipedia.

We have Wikibooks about learning different language, and Wiktionaries about the meanings of words. If language is your problem maybe you could start by looking there. Ec

Ray Saintonge

8:18 a.m.

The Cunctator wrote:

...

That's perfectly sensible. Instead some people are intent on reinventing the wheels that they are already spinning too fast to see. It is pointless to keep proving these repeatedly when the matter has already been properly considered in a more general article. Just link to the article where it's already done. Ec

Guy Chapman aka JzG

9:43 a.m.

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 22:46:03 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

To use NOR as a bare tool to excuse the omission of information is a perversion of the basis for having that guideline in the first place.

Depends on context. If the people pushing a very minor fringe theory don't include sources, there really is no problem with removing it. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Ray Saintonge

25 Dec 25 Dec

10:14 a.m.

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

...

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 22:46:03 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

To use NOR as a bare tool to excuse the omission of information is a perversion of the basis for having that guideline in the first place.

Depends on context. If the people pushing a very minor fringe theory don't include sources, there really is no problem with removing it.

Exactly. It was for this kind of situation that the rule was formulated. Actual application hasd sometimes gone to extremes. Ec

Steve Block

28 Dec 28 Dec

12:29 p.m.

New subject: Listspace

I was looking at the guidance currently offered on overcategorisation, which I feel is too prescriptive, and it occurred to me that maybe a list namespace would now be an idea. After all it does have a featured process, and it does lend itself to possibilities; lists could be transcluded into articles in a similar manner to templates where appropriate. This could perhaps see navigational templates hived out of template namespace and allow us to better lockdown template namespace. Just some thoughts to toss out for wider discussion. First problem I can see is conflict with Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate lists, or whatever it is worded now. What sparked it is the discussion which saw the muppet show guest stars category deleted, when everyone agreed it should be listified. There doesn't seem to be a process for listifying a category, and the best time to do it is whern the category still exists. Since that muppet show category was deleted in August, it would be very hard to now recreate the information, which to me seems to be missing the point of Wikipedia. We shouldn't delete valuable content because the form it is in is wrong, we should rather correct the form it is in. But I suppose that is the problem with process, sometimes it overrides the ideas it was built to support. Steve block -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.28/606 - Release Date: 28/12/06

Gurch

12:45 p.m.

New subject: Listspace

Steve Block wrote:

...

You may find this previous discussion on the subject helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shyam_Bihari/List_Namespace -Gurch

Steve Block

12:57 p.m.

New subject: RFC

Is Requests for comments broken? I'm curious as to how many people on the list have followed one and given comment recently, as I've had one up a while now and had no outside input. It's frustrating because I think I'm in a subtle POV and OR instance and the person I'm engaged with has managed to find an advocate and I'm confused as to the whole prrocess. Since I've got dragged into a debate I've lost my admin hat and I can't seem to attract outsiders to the page to build a consensus. It's gotten damn longwinded now, and my patience is becoming exhausted. I've tried the civil debate and it's getting nowhere. All I really want now is simply lots of damn voices to build a consensus. I don't care if I am right or wrong so long as a consensus is built and the policies are respected. So please, follow this link, read the whole damn talk page and build the encyclopedia, a word at a time in this instance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Allderdice_High_School#Need_outsid… Steve block -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.28/606 - Release Date: 28/12/06

Sarah

1:22 p.m.

New subject: RFC

On 12/28/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

...

Is Requests for comments broken? I'm curious as to how many people on the list have followed one and given comment recently, as I've had one up a while now and had no outside input.

I stopped commenting on RfCs when the page layout got changed and we added different subject sections. It made it awkward to find things, and after a while, I just stopped looking. Sarah

Jeff Raymond

1:31 p.m.

New subject: RFC

Steve Block wrote:

...

Is Requests for comments broken? I'm curious as to how many people on the list have followed one and given comment recently, as I've had one up a while now and had no outside input.

I'll never bother with it. It's completely worthless. I've never once had a positive experience with it. -Jeff -- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else." - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.

Matthew Brown

1:46 p.m.

New subject: RFC

IMO, the RFC process as it is now is utterly broken. I've heard it said before that what RFC really was intended for was preparing a case for arbitration and seeing if it had support before sending it to the arbcom; right now it just appears to be a pointless exercise. -Matt

Steve Bennett

2:15 p.m.

New subject: RFC

On 12/28/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

...

RfC is mostly used by primadonnas who want to waste experienced wikipedians' time with their pathetically trivial moral dilemma like whether the third section title should have an apostrophe before or after the s. Great in theory. Very big waste of time in practice. Though it did once serve in beating some senseless editors over the head with consensus. Renaming [[Cock]] to [[Rooster]] fwiw. Steve

Oldak Quill

2:50 p.m.

New subject: Listspace

On 28/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

...

After all it does have a featured process, and it does lend itself to possibilities; lists could be

Most featured articles have a signficant prose introduction and some analysis. They tend to have images too. They're essentially articles. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

Guy Chapman aka JzG

3:59 p.m.

New subject: RFC

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:57:06 +0000, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

...

Is Requests for comments broken? I'm curious as to how many people on the list have followed one and given comment recently, as I've had one up a while now and had no outside input.

I looked at it (more than once). I think that 0-0-0-Destruct-0 has some [[WP:OWN]] issues. For what it's worth I also think the disputed text should be out unless we can find an *independent* source for its significance and interpretation. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

cohesion

11:37 p.m.

New subject: RFC

On 12/28/06, Steve Block wrote:

...

Is Requests for comments broken?

I haven't completely given up on it, but it is kinda crappy. My big complaint is that when you do want to go and comment, you end up on a talk page with a million comments and no distillation of the issue. I think that could be solved with a simple little template maybe. When people are coming from RFC they don't really want to read ten thousand words in my opinion... Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]

Guy Chapman aka JzG

11:51 p.m.

New subject: RFC

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:37:35 -0600, cohesion <cohesion(a)sleepyhead.org> wrote:

...

My big complaint is that when you do want to go and comment, you end up on a talk page with a million comments and no distillation of the issue.

Fair point. A subpage or organisational template would probably help. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Steve Bennett

29 Dec 29 Dec

12:30 a.m.

New subject: RFC

On 12/29/06, cohesion <cohesion(a)sleepyhead.org> wrote:

...

Not always true. Cluey people sometimes add a section like this to the talk page: ==Request for comment== I've posted a request for comment. The issue is [...]. Those who believe that [...]. The opposing argument is [...]. RFC'ers place your comments here: *... Steve

Steve Block

1:05 p.m.

New subject: RFC

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

...

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:57:06 +0000, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

Is Requests for comments broken? I'm curious as to how many people on the list have followed one and given comment recently, as I've had one up a while now and had no outside input.

That would have been more helpful posted at the talk page. I've now had to resort to filing a mediation request. I don't do rouge. Have to say I find the whole advocacy process a bloody farce too, why on earth do we allow trolls and pov pushers to have people speak for them? Still, colour me sore and pissed off. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 29/12/06

Steve Block

1:17 p.m.

zero 0000 wrote:

...

Someone who can read music should be able to report from a musical score that it is in E-flat, even though that requires specialist knowledge.

Agree with you. But Wikipedia isn't the place for them to report that. We aren't a place for original research. The place for them to report that is in their criticism of the score published in some other source. We summarise it. That's how it works.

...

What the policy *should* require (somehow) is that anyone who can read music will agree that the score is in E-flat. The fundamental skills of the field should be assumed, and the policy should reflect that, imo.

No, again that isn't right. We don't record the truth, we summarise sources. What we do is allow the reader to check we have summarised the source accurately. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 29/12/06

Steve Block

1:20 p.m.

Matthew Brown wrote:

...

On 12/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Funny you discuss this. At http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Allderdice_High_School&… I've got someone asserting in the article that "a search of WorldCat reveals that as of 2006 Taylor Allderdice remains one of fewer than sixty high schools in the world to have its newspaper archived on microfilm in a major library." I agree this is original research, but can't find anyone to back me up. Fancy popping your head in and discussing the point? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 29/12/06

Steve Block

1:23 p.m.

New subject: Listspace

Gurch wrote:

...

You may find this previous discussion on the subject helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shyam_Bihari/List_Namespace

Ta. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 29/12/06

David Gerard

1:23 p.m.

On 29/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

...

zero 0000 wrote:

...

> Someone who can read music should be able to report from > a musical score that it is in E-flat, even though that requires > specialist knowledge.

...

That *is* summarising it. Summarising the obvious should not require teaching J. Random Querulous the basics of your field because they want a source for your observation that "the sky is blue" based on the wavelength of the light from it tending to be more like 400nm than 700nm.

...

> What the policy *should* require > (somehow) is that anyone who can read music will agree that > the score is in E-flat. The fundamental skills of the field > should be assumed, and the policy should reflect that, imo.

...

No, again that isn't right. We don't record the truth, we summarise sources. What we do is allow the reader to check we have summarised the source accurately.

This may be the case in some extreme interpretation, but I really don't see that it is in this one. - d.

Andrew Gray

3:26 p.m.

On 29/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

...

Matthew Brown wrote:

On 12/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

And here we hit the problem with limited original research - bad interpretation. He's shown that "fewer than sixty high schools in the world are known to have...", not that "fewer than sixty high schools in the world have..." It's based on a false premise - that WorldCat is some kind of "grand global catalogue", which it isn't; it doesn't claim to be comprehensive, just large. Looking in further detail, he's also demonstrated it only for cases where the originating body is called (and catalogued as) "XYZ High School", and has made no attempt to figure out how many of the 56 hits are actually in "major libraries" rather than, say, a microfiche copy acquired by the local public library. It doesn't apply in cases where the journal is catalogued with the school as an author rather than a corporate author (technically wrong, but does happen, and if there's one thing you won't get in WorldCat it'll be consistent cataloguing). So it's not even automatically a comprehensive or accurate listing of what he intended to be looking for... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Guy Chapman aka JzG

5:09 p.m.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:17:11 +0000, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

...

Wikipedia isn't the place for them to report that. We aren't a place for original research

Reporting the key signature of a score is not really OR, though. It's a trivial fact verified from a reliable source. If there are absolutely no secondary sources about the piece at all, then of course we can't have an article, but if they exist and simply forget to mention the key signature then there is no real problem reporting it since any editor *can* cross-check it without specialist knowledge (albeit with additional work). Translating Mozart's comments to Leutgeb based on the original scores of the horn concerti would be OR, though - they are virtually unreadable :-) Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Guy Chapman aka JzG

5:15 p.m.

New subject: RFC

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:05:07 +0000, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

...

Have to say I find the whole advocacy process a bloody farce too, why on earth do we allow trolls and pov pushers to have people speak for them?

Because not all of them are trolls and POV pushers, some of them are clueless newbies. And the advocates should be able to tell the difference. Yes, Pat, that means you. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Ray Saintonge

6:55 p.m.

David Gerard wrote:

...

On 29/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

zero 0000 wrote:

Someone who can read music should be able to report from a musical score that it is in E-flat, even though that requires specialist knowledge.

An NOR extremist could likely ask for a citation that would convince those who believe that light is in particles rather than waves. :-) Saying that a musical work is in E-flat is not criticism; it's meta-data where there is a high degree of probability that subject-educated readers will draw the same conclusion from identical data contained in the musical score. Other information that could constitute original research in a musical context when it is not put there by the composer would be terms like "andante" or "allegro" to indicate the speed of the work

...

No, again that isn't right. We don't record the truth, we summarise sources. What we do is allow the reader to check we have summarised the source accurately.

This may be the case in some extreme interpretation, but I really don't see that it is in this one.

Yes. The fact is that most situations are not extreme. We put in a lot of effort arguing about the extremes when the reality is that most of the extremes are of limited consequence. The entire anal process of building a unified field theory of epistemology results in a considerable waste of time. Ec

Ray Saintonge

7:08 p.m.

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

...

Steve Block wrote:

Wikipedia isn't the place for them to report that. We aren't a place for original research

That sounds very much like sucking and blowing at the same time. On the one hand you admit it's not really OR, and then proceed with consequences based on its being OR. Ec

Guy Chapman aka JzG

7:20 p.m.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:55:28 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Saying that a musical work is in E-flat is not criticism; it's meta-data where there is a high degree of probability that subject-educated readers will draw the same conclusion from identical data contained in the musical score. Other information that could constitute original research in a musical context when it is not put there by the composer would be terms like "andante" or "allegro" to indicate the speed of the work

Or stating that a song is in a given time signature, or perhaps in triple metre, based on listening to it (a real-world example from some time back). The fact that the editor in question asserted that 6/8 is triple metre rather weakened their argument, in my mind anyway. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Guy Chapman aka JzG

7:52 p.m.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:08:16 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

That sounds very much like sucking and blowing at the same time. On the one hand you admit it's not really OR, and then proceed with consequences based on its being OR.

"Novel synthesis" is the hallmark of original research. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Kurt Maxwell Weber

8:17 p.m.

New subject: RFC

On Friday 29 December 2006 11:15, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

...

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:05:07 +0000, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

Have to say I find the whole advocacy process a bloody farce too, why on earth do we allow trolls and pov pushers to have people speak for them?

Because not all of them are trolls and POV pushers, some of them are clueless newbies.

And others are people who honestly (and possibly correctly) believe that they were in the right. -- Kurt Weber <kmw(a)armory.com>

Steve Block

8:48 p.m.

Andrew Gray wrote:

...

On 29/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

Matthew Brown wrote:

On 12/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

That's great, ta. I've used this onto the talk page but this is turning into a revert war now. There's a lot of subtle interpretation that I'm dealing with here and I am really out of my depth. The editor has uploaded scans of the paper to Berkley, is citing them, and wants to make the claim that the fact that the school publishes a page of the school newspaper on its web site indicates its non-benign attitude toward drugs in February 2005, since the page published contains an article entitled "Drugs' presence felt despite school effort." I mean, that's interpretation, surely? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 29/12/06

Andrew Gray

8:52 p.m.

On 29/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

...

.... make the claim that the fact that the school publishes a page of the school newspaper on its web site indicates its non-benign attitude toward drugs in February 2005, since the page published contains an article entitled "Drugs' presence felt despite school effort." I mean, that's interpretation, surely?

Deducing the school's policies from which issue of their newspaper they happen to give as an example? That's not interpretation, that's [[Kremlinology]]... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Ilmari Karonen

10:50 p.m.

Andrew Gray wrote:

...

On 29/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

Yes, I'd say the operative word here isn't so much "original" as "logically unsound". You just can't get from here to there. -- Ilmari Karonen

cohesion

11:55 p.m.

New subject: RFC

On 12/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Yes, I love when people do that :) Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]

Steve Block

30 Dec 30 Dec

3:57 p.m.

David Gerard wrote:

...

On 29/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

zero 0000 wrote:

> Someone who can read music should be able to report from > a musical score that it is in E-flat, even though that requires > specialist knowledge.

Yeah, you're probably right. Trying to keep comic book articles free of OR has probably heightened my senses as to what it is. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.0/609 - Release Date: 29/12/06

Ray Saintonge

8:56 p.m.

New subject: RFC

Steve Block wrote:

...

Some time ago we had a long-running and often bitter debate over whether high-schools were sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia. They are now generally accepted. Speaking as a person who always supported their inclusion, I also have to admit that there are very few that would personally interest me. The nearest that I have ever been to Pittsburgh has been to drive by on the Interstate that runs south of the city. I took a quick look at the article, corrected a minor grammar error, and decided that I didn't want to spend the time understanding the problems connected with a high-school in a city that I have never visited. The possible fact that my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was imprisoned there at Fort Duquesne when he was captured by the British enemy during the Seven Years' War.is not sufficient justification to attract my interest. The best you can hope for is editors with local interest in Pittsburgh; the subject is notable but inherently local. Ec

Guy Chapman aka JzG

10:47 p.m.

New subject: RFC

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 12:56:29 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Some time ago we had a long-running and often bitter debate over whether high-schools were sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia. They are now generally accepted.

Um, actually, most people have simply given up the fighting. "All high schools are notable" is still a doctrinal position rather than a statement of consensus. And it still flares up from time to time, for example with very small church schools on which there is little or no independent coverage. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Matthew Brown

31 Dec 31 Dec

12:50 p.m.

New subject: RFC

On 12/30/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

...

Um, actually, most people have simply given up the fighting.

I suspect that most people actually never gave a damn about the issue in the first place - it's easy to believe every wikipedian cares about the schools inclusion debate, but I suspect most really don't care. -Matt

Thomas Dalton

4:50 p.m.

New subject: RFC

...

Um, actually, most people have simply given up the fighting.

That's pretty much how consensus based decision making is meant to work. You keep arguing until one side stops, either because they're convinced by the others arguments, they've reached an acceptable compromise, or they simply don't think it's important enough to worry about.

Steve Summit

5:03 p.m.

New subject: RFC

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

Guy Chapman wrote:

Um, actually, most people have simply given up the fighting.

"Is meant to work", or, "ends up working in practice"? The problem, of course, is that you can end up with decisions biased pretty heavily towards people with obsessive personalities and waaaaaaay too much time on their hands.

Thomas Dalton

5:19 p.m.

New subject: RFC

...

"Is meant to work", or, "ends up working in practice"?

Is meant to work. The whole point of consensus is that you should never have to determine what it is, because once you've reached consensus, people stop arguing. (We actually go for "rough consensus" on Wikipedia, which ends up being closer to "supermajority" than "consensus".)

...

The problem, of course, is that you can end up with decisions biased pretty heavily towards people with obsessive personalities and waaaaaaay too much time on their hands.

Yes, some people having louder voices than others can skew consensus, but you're more likely to end up with simply no consensus rather than the wrong consensus in such cases.

Guy Chapman aka JzG

5:59 p.m.

New subject: RFC

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:50:12 +0000, "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Um, actually, most people have simply given up the fighting.

In this case, however, it was because of absolute obdurate refusal to countenance any form of compromise in any way whatsoever on the part of some people whose religion holds as a fundamental tenet that "all schools are inherently notable". Numerous excellent ideas were floated, all rejected by the same small group of people. Wikipedia is not a directory, except of some things. You still get people asserting "all schools are notable". I think they may even believe it. I don't: my first school is so far form notable that it took considerable research even to find out how it spelt its name, and even then I only have a shrewd idea, I can't find a reliable source for it. Another of my schools is over a thousand years old and the only one in the English-speaking world to have educated a Pope. To assert that both are notable is to use such a low threshold of notability as to render the term utterly meaningless. I can already see the same arguments starting re shopping malls. I hate to think what will be next. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Steve Bennett

1 Jan 1 Jan

2:46 a.m.

New subject: RFC

On 1/1/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

...

You still get people asserting "all schools are notable". I think

James Hare

2:52 a.m.

New subject: RFC

Or rather, schools are not inherently notable, but if there's something that makes them notable, like receiving a national award or being part of a shooting that made national news, then that makes them notable. On 12/31/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 1/1/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

You still get people asserting "all schools are notable". I think

Don't forget, "notable" has two meanings: 1) Interesting, noteworthy, more worthy of discussion than similar entities in its category. 2) Suitable for an article in Wikipedia. All schools are clearly not notable(1). But unless we can define what that means, the default seems to be to assume that they are all notable(2). Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Ray Saintonge

10:21 a.m.

New subject: RFC

Steve Summit wrote:

...

Thomas Dalton wrote:

Guy Chapman wrote:

Um, actually, most people have simply given up the fighting.

Exactly. Then what you have is not consensus but a form of bullying. True consensus comes from finding a position that all will agree to on the merits of the situation, not from wearing down opponents into exhaustion If people abandon an issue it may just be that they don't have the energy to deal with the POV pushers. Ec

6325

days inactive

6338

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

62 comments

22 participants

tags (0)

participants (22)

Andrew Gray
cohesion
David Gerard
Gurch
Guy Chapman aka JzG
Ilmari Karonen
James Hare
jayjg
Jeff Raymond
Ken Arromdee
Kurt Maxwell Weber
Matthew Brown
Oldak Quill
phoebe ayers
Ray Saintonge
Sarah
Steve Bennett
Steve Block
Steve Summit
The Cunctator
Thomas Dalton
zero 0000