From: Guy Chapman aka JzG
Look up a fact? No problem. Join the dots from a series of facts you looked up? Original research, in my book.
I was recently working on an article (not in Wikipedia) on the phrase "Slippery slope," which these days usually means "a course leading inexorably to disaster." I wanted to support a statement that although there _are_ old uses of the phrase in its modern meaning, it became much more popular starting around 1980.
My public library (and _many_ others) provide online access to a searchable full page-image database of complete back issues of the New York Times. In a few minutes, I was able to compile this:
Hits on exact phrase "slippery slope", all article types, ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) (a database available to patrons of many public libraries)
1857-99: 5 (average about 1 per decade) 1900-49: 41 (average 8.2 per decade) 1950-59: 11 1960-69: 23 1970-79: 36 1980-89: 144 1990-99: 402
Well, can I use this in an article? Under Wikipedia's present rules, I don't think so.
And yet.
It is certainly original research. But it's verifiable, sensu Wikipedia, in that it the database is very widely available so it's easy to confirm my results. In fact it's easier than verifying an obscure print publication with no online copy. And, in this particular case, my assemblage of facts is intellectually honest: it is reasonable to want to know the history of the phrase's use, and this is a reasonable way to find out. This is not a selective assembly of facts made for the purpose of suggesting a biassed conclusion.
And I was _not_ able to find a published source that said in so many words that the phrase bloomed in popularity around 1980.
Granted this _is_ original research, what exactly is the harm in it?
Other than its being the first step on a slippery slope, of course.
The harm there is exactly why we -do- prohibit original research. How do old issues of the NYT show something in general? What if the NYT used to have a paragraph in its style guide that said you shouldn't use the phrase except in a few rare cases, put into place in the early 50s, changed that in the mid-80s to state that it was acceptable, and it's been used more and more in the paper to this day? What if it was used all over the place, and the NYT was behind the curve? You're not a statistician (at least, I presume not), and interpretation of raw statistics is -always- more complex than it appears, especially when having to look for (and eliminate) potential skewing factors like the ones I mentioned above.
On 4/2/07, wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
From: Guy Chapman aka JzG
Look up a fact? No problem. Join the dots from a series of facts you looked up? Original research, in my book.
I was recently working on an article (not in Wikipedia) on the phrase "Slippery slope," which these days usually means "a course leading inexorably to disaster." I wanted to support a statement that although there _are_ old uses of the phrase in its modern meaning, it became much more popular starting around 1980.
My public library (and _many_ others) provide online access to a searchable full page-image database of complete back issues of the New York Times. In a few minutes, I was able to compile this:
Hits on exact phrase "slippery slope", all article types, ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) (a database available to patrons of many public libraries)
1857-99: 5 (average about 1 per decade) 1900-49: 41 (average 8.2 per decade) 1950-59: 11 1960-69: 23 1970-79: 36 1980-89: 144 1990-99: 402
Well, can I use this in an article? Under Wikipedia's present rules, I don't think so.
And yet.
It is certainly original research. But it's verifiable, sensu Wikipedia, in that it the database is very widely available so it's easy to confirm my results. In fact it's easier than verifying an obscure print publication with no online copy. And, in this particular case, my assemblage of facts is intellectually honest: it is reasonable to want to know the history of the phrase's use, and this is a reasonable way to find out. This is not a selective assembly of facts made for the purpose of suggesting a biassed conclusion.
And I was _not_ able to find a published source that said in so many words that the phrase bloomed in popularity around 1980.
Granted this _is_ original research, what exactly is the harm in it?
Other than its being the first step on a slippery slope, of course.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Seraphim Blade wrote:
The harm there is exactly why we -do- prohibit original research.
Sounds like a circular argument. No original research was adopted to deal with people who wanted a host for their crackpot theories in physics.
How do old issues of the NYT show something in general?
That he is showing something "in general" is your inference, not his. He shows the statistical results, and leaves it to the reader to draw his conclusion. Raw statistical data is still a presentation of facts. In the scientific method the presentation of data, and theorizing about that data are distinct acts.If the NYT is going to be accepted as a source for the factual content of its articles, why should it not be an authority for its statistical data.
What if the NYT used to have a paragraph in its style guide that said you shouldn't use the phrase except in a few rare cases, put into place in the early 50s, changed that in the mid-80s to state that it was acceptable, and it's been used more and more in the paper to this day?
This argument is based on speculation unless you can cite the specific style guide issues that say this.
What if it was used all over the place, and the NYT was behind the curve?
Then you show evidence to substantiate that.
You're not a statistician (at least, I presume not), and interpretation of raw statistics is -always- more complex than it appears, especially when having to look for (and eliminate) potential skewing factors like the ones I mentioned above.
Presenting raw statistics and interpreting them are two different acts.
Ec
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:41:33 -0700, wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
Granted this _is_ original research, what exactly is the harm in it?
Missing context, for a start. It's meaningless without a measure of what proportion of eligible journals it appears in over that period. Judgment of which are the relevant journals might be an issue...
Guy (JzG)
On 4/3/07, wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
From: Guy Chapman aka JzG
Look up a fact? No problem. Join the dots from a series of facts you looked up? Original research, in my book.
I was recently working on an article (not in Wikipedia) on the phrase "Slippery slope," which these days usually means "a course leading inexorably to disaster." I wanted to support a statement that although there _are_ old uses of the phrase in its modern meaning, it became much more popular starting around 1980.
My public library (and _many_ others) provide online access to a searchable full page-image database of complete back issues of the New York Times. In a few minutes, I was able to compile this:
Hits on exact phrase "slippery slope", all article types, ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) (a database available to patrons of many public libraries)
1857-99: 5 (average about 1 per decade) 1900-49: 41 (average 8.2 per decade) 1950-59: 11 1960-69: 23 1970-79: 36 1980-89: 144 1990-99: 402
Well, can I use this in an article? Under Wikipedia's present rules, I don't think so.
And yet.
It is certainly original research. But it's verifiable, sensu Wikipedia, in that it the database is very widely available so it's easy to confirm my results. In fact it's easier than verifying an obscure print publication with no online copy. And, in this particular case, my assemblage of facts is intellectually honest: it is reasonable to want to know the history of the phrase's use, and this is a reasonable way to find out. This is not a selective assembly of facts made for the purpose of suggesting a biassed conclusion.
And I was _not_ able to find a published source that said in so many words that the phrase bloomed in popularity around 1980.
Granted this _is_ original research, what exactly is the harm in it?
Other than its being the first step on a slippery slope, of course.
It strikes me that you could say, for example, "The usage of the phrase in the NYT during the 1980s was triple that of the 1970s" (obviously phrased better). As long as you don't point to a particular conclusion, leaving the reader to decide how to interpret this primary source, it seems to be acceptable (IMO). It certainly dovetails with NPOV's principle of show, don't tell. :-p
Johnleemk
On 4/2/07, wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
From: Guy Chapman aka JzG
Look up a fact? No problem. Join the dots from a series of facts you looked up? Original research, in my book.
I was recently working on an article (not in Wikipedia) on the phrase "Slippery slope," which these days usually means "a course leading inexorably to disaster." I wanted to support a statement that although there _are_ old uses of the phrase in its modern meaning, it became much more popular starting around 1980.
My public library (and _many_ others) provide online access to a searchable full page-image database of complete back issues of the New York Times. In a few minutes, I was able to compile this:
Hits on exact phrase "slippery slope", all article types, ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) (a database available to patrons of many public libraries)
1857-99: 5 (average about 1 per decade) 1900-49: 41 (average 8.2 per decade) 1950-59: 11 1960-69: 23 1970-79: 36 1980-89: 144 1990-99: 402
Well, can I use this in an article? Under Wikipedia's present rules, I don't think so.
And yet.
It is certainly original research. But it's verifiable, sensu Wikipedia, in that it the database is very widely available so it's easy to confirm my results. In fact it's easier than verifying an obscure print publication with no online copy. And, in this particular case, my assemblage of facts is intellectually honest: it is reasonable to want to know the history of the phrase's use, and this is a reasonable way to find out. This is not a selective assembly of facts made for the purpose of suggesting a biassed conclusion.
And I was _not_ able to find a published source that said in so many words that the phrase bloomed in popularity around 1980.
Granted this _is_ original research, what exactly is the harm in it?
Other than its being the first step on a slippery slope, of course.
A nice example :)
Well, the OED, generally recognized as the gold standard in etymology, lists the first use of the term in a figurative sense ("leading to disaster") in 1951: *"1951* J. FLEMINGhttp://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-f.html#j-fleming *Man who looked Back* x. 132 You go off down the slippery slope; it'll do you good." There are two more quotations, one from 1964 and one form 1979. There are of course earlier uses of the phrase but they are not meant in the same way. Seems to me that to really make your case based on your original research in the NYT, you'd need to check every single use of the citation to make sure they were talking about a slippery slope (figuratively, as in leading to disaster) and not a slippery slope (literally). Did you do this? I can't tell from your message here. Furthermore, there are other factors that could affect usage that have nothing to do with the popularity of the phrase -- the number of articles in the paper may have increased in the 1980s (and thus the opportunities for using any phrase), stylistic guidelines for using "slang" phrases may have changed, etc. etc.
I think that's one of the fundamental problems with original research: you never know how *good* someone's research is. At least when it's printed in other sources, you have some assurance of outside editorial checking (or can check on it yourself, because it's published and you can track down a record of someone's claims). I don't really know how the OED people compile their quotes, but I trust them to do a good job at it and as professional etymologists have an understanding of the issues involved that far exceeds mine, and because it's directly printed in the OED, there's a record that can be accessed long after we all stop working on Wikipedia.
-- phoebe
On 03/04/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really know how the OED people compile their quotes, but I trust them to do a good job at it and as professional etymologists have an understanding of the issues involved that far exceeds mine, and because it's directly printed in the OED, there's a record that can be accessed long after we all stop working on Wikipedia.
The OED is surprisingly modern in the way it compiles its quotes - most are sent in by volunteers, and have been since day one. They submit the citation and context; editors do through the submissions, decide if it's an interesting use or from an interesting date, and check them against (where possible) an available copy of the same text - if appropriate, any earlier editions than the one cited, as well.
So contributed by the masses and curated by the experts. It's worked well.