Here is a scenario that explores the boundaries of what counts as Original Reseach. Suppose there is a legal issue about which there are two popular opinions, say A and B.
Now I log into a well-known depository of legal journals and search for this issue. I get about 20 hits. Then I look at each of these hits (articles published in peer-reviewed law journals) and in all cases the writer gives opinion A.
Ok, so now I am itching to write in Wikipedia something like: "The consensus amongst legal scholars is that opinion A is correct" (or similar), with a footnote stating the evidence.
Can I do that? My sources were the best that exist, and everything I did can be verified easily by anyone with a good library. On the other hand, I have drawn my own conclusions from these observations so maybe I'm afoul of the No Original Research policy.
I tend to think it's ok because the conclusions I drew were the same as any reasonable person would draw, and these conclusions don't require any private information. I admit it is a boundary case though. What do you think?
--Zero.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hmm. It IS original research of a sort, BUT can be sourced. It would be best to find some kind of meta-article out there that reviews the current state of opinion and says the words you want.
If you can't find one, I feel it would be appropriate to state it carefully. Rather than blanket stating "A consensus of legal scholars", you might want to say something more specific.
-Matt
On 12/17/06, zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
Ok, so now I am itching to write in Wikipedia something like: "The consensus amongst legal scholars is that opinion A is correct" (or similar), with a footnote stating the evidence.
Can I do that? My sources were the best that exist, and everything I did can be verified easily by anyone with a good library. On the other hand, I have drawn my own conclusions from these observations so maybe I'm afoul of the No Original Research policy.
Of course that's ok. Original research in that scenario would be to say "the consensus among legal scholars is A, but they haven't considered C, and therefore D is the correct position."
Original research is about posing new theories, or making new inferences, or drawing new conclusions that are your own opinions and involve some element of analysis or synthesis. Fundamentally, original research is introducing your own original thought into articles.
Here you're simply stating an obvious fact: all sources support A. Drawing conclusions from this in a way that amounts to original thought would be something like "all sources support A and as a result E, F and G".
On 12/17/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
Ok, so now I am itching to write in Wikipedia something like: "The consensus amongst legal scholars is that opinion A is correct" (or similar), with a footnote stating the evidence.
Can I do that? My sources were the best that exist, and everything I did can be verified easily by anyone with a good library. On the other hand, I have drawn my own conclusions from these observations so maybe I'm afoul of the No Original Research policy.
Of course that's ok. Original research in that scenario would be to say "the consensus among legal scholars is A, but they haven't considered C, and therefore D is the correct position."
Original research is about posing new theories, or making new inferences, or drawing new conclusions that are your own opinions and involve some element of analysis or synthesis. Fundamentally, original research is introducing your own original thought into articles.
And, of course, drawing your own conclusions and stating that there is a "legal consensus" on this matter, based on your own research into what various legal scholars have said, is a prime example of original research. Quote the scholars, list their names, state that there are a number of them, but don't introduce your own original thought that these selected sources have created a "legal consensus".
Jay.
Here you're simply stating an obvious fact: all sources support A. Drawing conclusions from this in a way that amounts to original thought would be something like "all sources support A and as a result E, F and G".
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/17/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Of course that's ok. Original research in that scenario would be to say "the consensus among legal scholars is A, but they haven't considered C, and therefore D is the correct position."
Original research is about posing new theories, or making new inferences, or drawing new conclusions that are your own opinions and involve some element of analysis or synthesis. Fundamentally, original research is introducing your own original thought into articles.
And, of course, drawing your own conclusions and stating that there is a "legal consensus" on this matter, based on your own research into what various legal scholars have said, is a prime example of original research. Quote the scholars, list their names, state that there are a number of them, but don't introduce your own original thought that these selected sources have created a "legal consensus".
I was speaking to the particular example given, where there are two popular positions on the subject held by lay people, while all expert accounts support only one of those positions. In this context, where all experts who have written on the subject have agreed with the same position, surely it is not original research to say so.
It may be original research in a different context, for example where there are no alternative opinions offered anywhere, and thus where the published accounts would exist in a vacuum, as it were.
I was speaking to the particular example given, where there are two popular positions on the subject held by lay people, while all expert accounts support only one of those positions. In this context, where all experts who have written on the subject have agreed with the same position, surely it is not original research to say so.
It would be easiest in this case just to state it as fact and cite the sources you've found.
"While some members of the public believe X [cite], legally, Y is correct [cite][cite][cite]."
You are allowed to assume that your sources are correct, as long as they appear reliable (something published in a law journal counts as reliable). That's why we cite sources, so in the event that the source is wrong it is clear who is at fault, and we can't be charged with libel, or whatever else the consequences of false information may be.
On 12/18/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I was speaking to the particular example given, where there are two popular positions on the subject held by lay people, while all expert accounts support only one of those positions. In this context, where all experts who have written on the subject have agreed with the same position, surely it is not original research to say so.
It would be easiest in this case just to state it as fact and cite the sources you've found.
"While some members of the public believe X [cite], legally, Y is correct [cite][cite][cite]."
You are allowed to assume that your sources are correct, as long as they appear reliable (something published in a law journal counts as reliable). That's why we cite sources, so in the event that the source is wrong it is clear who is at fault, and we can't be charged with libel, or whatever else the consequences of false information may be.
No, the law is much trickier and more gray than that, and Wikipedia editors need to get out of the notion that they can use original research to outline arguments and pontificate about what the "true facts" are. As well, we really have no idea what people believe, we only know what they say and do. Thus, you can state, "A number of authors have stated X[cite][cite], while legal scholars have stated Y[cite][cite][cite]", but that's as far as we can go, and indeed, as far as we need to go. It makes the point equally well without the smell of argumentative POV-pushing.
Jay.
No, the law is much trickier and more gray than that, and Wikipedia editors need to get out of the notion that they can use original research to outline arguments and pontificate about what the "true facts" are. As well, we really have no idea what people believe, we only know what they say and do. Thus, you can state, "A number of authors have stated X[cite][cite], while legal scholars have stated Y[cite][cite][cite]", but that's as far as we can go, and indeed, as far as we need to go. It makes the point equally well without the smell of argumentative POV-pushing.
Stated is much better than believe, yes, excellent point. I'm not sure what your saying in your first sentence though...
On 12/18/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
No, the law is much trickier and more gray than that, and Wikipedia editors need to get out of the notion that they can use original research to outline arguments and pontificate about what the "true facts" are. As well, we really have no idea what people believe, we only know what they say and do. Thus, you can state, "A number of authors have stated X[cite][cite], while legal scholars have stated Y[cite][cite][cite]", but that's as far as we can go, and indeed, as far as we need to go. It makes the point equally well without the smell of argumentative POV-pushing.
Stated is much better than believe, yes, excellent point. I'm not sure what your saying in your first sentence though...
What I was saying was that regarding legal opinion, we don't tell people what is "correct", we just tell them what legal scholars have said on the matter. The latter meets [[WP:NPOV]], the former does not.
Jay.
What I was saying was that regarding legal opinion, we don't tell people what is "correct", we just tell them what legal scholars have said on the matter. The latter meets [[WP:NPOV]], the former does not.
I think it is implicit that "The sky is blue [1]" means "Source 1 says the sky is blue". We don't need to go through and put "So-and-so says" at the beginning of every sentence in the encyclopaedia.
On 12/19/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is implicit that "The sky is blue [1]" means "Source 1 says the sky is blue". We don't need to go through and put "So-and-so says" at the beginning of every sentence in the encyclopaedia.
Which is different from "Everyone agrees the sky is blue [1][2][3][4][5][6]".
Steve
I think it is implicit that "The sky is blue [1]" means "Source 1 says the sky is blue". We don't need to go through and put "So-and-so says" at the beginning of every sentence in the encyclopaedia.
Which is different from "Everyone agrees the sky is blue [1][2][3][4][5][6]".
Very much so.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
You are allowed to assume that your sources are correct, as long as they appear reliable (something published in a law journal counts as reliable). That's why we cite sources, so in the event that the source is wrong it is clear who is at fault, and we can't be charged with libel, or whatever else the consequences of false information may be.
But "reliable" is a statement of opinion. One can cite the source, and leave the reader to determine whether it is reliable.
A source may be wrong, but this should not necessarily imply a finding of fault.
"Libel" takes us even further afield. Very little of the information, whether sourced or unsourced, will be libelous. The primary consequence of false information would be a loss of credibility. It clouds the issue when we dramatically try to make more of that than is warranted.
Ec
On 12/17/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Of course that's ok. Original research in that scenario would be to say "the consensus among legal scholars is A, but they haven't considered C, and therefore D is the correct position."
Original research is about posing new theories, or making new inferences, or drawing new conclusions that are your own opinions and involve some element of analysis or synthesis. Fundamentally, original research is introducing your own original thought into articles.
And, of course, drawing your own conclusions and stating that there is a "legal consensus" on this matter, based on your own research into what various legal scholars have said, is a prime example of original research. Quote the scholars, list their names, state that there are a number of them, but don't introduce your own original thought that these selected sources have created a "legal consensus".
I was speaking to the particular example given, where there are two popular positions on the subject held by lay people, while all expert accounts support only one of those positions. In this context, where all experts who have written on the subject have agreed with the same position, surely it is not original research to say so.
On the contrary, it surely is. All of the people that this particular investigator has found, and consider to be legal experts, have one view, so it's fine to state something like "Legal experts have stated Y", with a series of footnotes. However, one cannot go from that step to stating "All legal experts believe that Y", since we have no idea what *all* legal experts believe, only the statements of the ones we happen to have surveyed. Even worse would be an insistence that we must conclude that "the law is Y", since the law is complicated, malleable, and context specific, and one often has no idea which way a judge, panel of judges, or jury will rule.
Jay.
On 12/17/06, zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
Here is a scenario that explores the boundaries of what counts as Original Reseach. Suppose there is a legal issue about which there are two popular opinions, say A and B.
Now I log into a well-known depository of legal journals and search for this issue. I get about 20 hits. Then I look at each of these hits (articles published in peer-reviewed law journals) and in all cases the writer gives opinion A.
Ok, so now I am itching to write in Wikipedia something like: "The consensus amongst legal scholars is that opinion A is correct" (or similar), with a footnote stating the evidence.
Can I do that? My sources were the best that exist, and everything I did can be verified easily by anyone with a good library. On the other hand, I have drawn my own conclusions from these observations so maybe I'm afoul of the No Original Research policy.
I tend to think it's ok because the conclusions I drew were the same as any reasonable person would draw, and these conclusions don't require any private information. I admit it is a boundary case though. What do you think?
It's obviously original research. You could certainly state that "A number of legal scholars have stated that...", with your reference, but it's not up to you to decide that "legal consensus" is, it's up to experts in the area.
Jay.
It's obviously original research. You could certainly state that "A number of legal scholars have stated that...", with your reference, but it's not up to you to decide that "legal consensus" is, it's up to experts in the area.
Exactly. Stating what various sources say on the matter is just regular research. Drawing conclusions as to consensus is original research. You don't have a source to verify the consensus, you just have a collection of sources agreeing with eachother. For example, where is the source saying there aren't any articles on the subject other than the ones you've cited?
On 12/17/06, zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
Here is a scenario that explores the boundaries of what counts as Original Reseach. Suppose there is a legal issue about which there are two popular opinions, say A and B.
Now I log into a well-known depository of legal journals and search for this issue. I get about 20 hits. Then I look at each of these hits (articles published in peer-reviewed law journals) and in all cases the writer gives opinion A.
Ok, so now I am itching to write in Wikipedia something like: "The consensus amongst legal scholars is that opinion A is correct" (or similar), with a footnote stating the evidence.
Can I do that?
No because you don't appear to have considered the role of publication bias (obviously doing a funnel plot in this case is going to be trick though).
My sources were the best that exist, and everything I did can be verified easily by anyone with a good library. On the other hand, I have drawn my own conclusions from these observations so maybe I'm afoul of the No Original Research policy.
I tend to think it's ok because the conclusions I drew were the same as any reasonable person would draw, and these conclusions don't require any private information.
There problem is that they are not. Some might talk about publication bias others might disspute elements of your search.
OR is when you go out and test the evidence yourself. Finding sources to corroborate a point is called research, not original research.
Mgm
On 12/17/06, zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
Here is a scenario that explores the boundaries of what counts as Original Reseach. Suppose there is a legal issue about which there are two popular opinions, say A and B.
Now I log into a well-known depository of legal journals and search for this issue. I get about 20 hits. Then I look at each of these hits (articles published in peer-reviewed law journals) and in all cases the writer gives opinion A.
Ok, so now I am itching to write in Wikipedia something like: "The consensus amongst legal scholars is that opinion A is correct" (or similar), with a footnote stating the evidence.
Can I do that? My sources were the best that exist, and everything I did can be verified easily by anyone with a good library. On the other hand, I have drawn my own conclusions from these observations so maybe I'm afoul of the No Original Research policy.
I tend to think it's ok because the conclusions I drew were the same as any reasonable person would draw, and these conclusions don't require any private information. I admit it is a boundary case though. What do you think?
--Zero.
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
OR is when you go out and test the evidence yourself. Finding sources to corroborate a point is called research, not original research.
No. In Wikipedia, OR is when you do the interpretation of evidence yourself. We should simplify the OR rule to make this clearer: "Wikipedians are dumb. We cannot interpret, only repeat."
Steve
Original Research is also totally new ideas or concepts not published anywhere else.
On 12/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
OR is when you go out and test the evidence yourself. Finding sources to corroborate a point is called research, not original research.
No. In Wikipedia, OR is when you do the interpretation of evidence yourself. We should simplify the OR rule to make this clearer: "Wikipedians are dumb. We cannot interpret, only repeat."
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/18/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Original Research is also totally new ideas or concepts not published anywhere else.
Well, yes. And collecting evidence etc. I was attempting to define the high water mark, if you will.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
OR is when you go out and test the evidence yourself. Finding sources to corroborate a point is called research, not original research.
No. In Wikipedia, OR is when you do the interpretation of evidence yourself. We should simplify the OR rule to make this clearer: "Wikipedians are dumb. We cannot interpret, only repeat."
So, in theory every entry could be written by a bot, eh?
/me imagines RamBot adding articles on every court decision and piece of legislation...
On 18/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
OR is when you go out and test the evidence yourself. Finding sources to corroborate a point is called research, not original research.
No. In Wikipedia, OR is when you do the interpretation of evidence yourself. We should simplify the OR rule to make this clearer: "Wikipedians are dumb. We cannot interpret, only repeat."
So, in theory every entry could be written by a bot, eh?
/me imagines RamBot adding articles on every court decision and piece of legislation...
I'm manually writing articles on pieces of legislation - sadly the data isn't available to make it bot-generable, otherwise I'd set that going and tidy the results up.
Which neatly brings out another aspect of pushing-OR. I open my copy of "Tudor Constituional Documents", and proceed to write something like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridges_Act_1530 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highways_Act_1555
The problem is, all that the source contains is (a translation of?) the original text; I've recast it in a more modern style and converted from long and tedious legalese to a fairly comprehensible precis, but I've done it solely working from the original and not from any secondary synopsis of the Act.
Is this original research? If not, why not - where does "rewriting" end and "interpreting" begin? Does it depend on the complexity of the source document?
I think I'm in the clear - but I'm curious to know where we would draw a line on this sort of thing.
So, in theory every entry could be written by a bot, eh?
/me imagines RamBot adding articles on every court decision and piece of legislation...
Man, that'd be useful. I think one of the most frustrating AfD debates I've ever been involved with was one where the consensus was that executive orders weren't notable. Completely blew my mind.
I'm manually writing articles on pieces of legislation - sadly the data isn't available to make it bot-generable, otherwise I'd set that going and tidy the results up.
I keep saying I'm going to do that for Supreme Court cases, but I never get to it.
-Jeff
Which neatly brings out another aspect of pushing-OR. I open my copy of "Tudor Constituional Documents", and proceed to write something like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridges_Act_1530 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highways_Act_1555
The problem is, all that the source contains is (a translation of?) the original text; I've recast it in a more modern style and converted from long and tedious legalese to a fairly comprehensible precis, but I've done it solely working from the original and not from any secondary synopsis of the Act.
Is this original research? If not, why not - where does "rewriting" end and "interpreting" begin? Does it depend on the complexity of the source document?
I think you're ok. You're working from a primary source, so all you can state is facts, but those facts are fine. Rewriting something which isn't open to interpretation isn't OR, however if there are multiple ways to interpret it, choosing one of them certainly is. Of course, determine whether or not something is open to interpretation is very difficult (you may simply have not noticed the alternative). It's probably best to stay as close to the original wording as possible...
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Which neatly brings out another aspect of pushing-OR. I open my copy of "Tudor Constituional Documents", and proceed to write something like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridges_Act_1530 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highways_Act_1555
The problem is, all that the source contains is (a translation of?) the original text; I've recast it in a more modern style and converted from long and tedious legalese to a fairly comprehensible precis, but I've done it solely working from the original and not from any secondary synopsis of the Act.
Is this original research? If not, why not - where does "rewriting" end and "interpreting" begin? Does it depend on the complexity of the source document?
I think you're ok. You're working from a primary source, so all you can state is facts, but those facts are fine. Rewriting something which isn't open to interpretation isn't OR, however if there are multiple ways to interpret it, choosing one of them certainly is. Of course, determine whether or not something is open to interpretation is very difficult (you may simply have not noticed the alternative). It's probably best to stay as close to the original wording as possible...
If one were to take that position to its logical conclusion no translation would be allowable since they are all original research. In the case of 16th century statutes the language has certainly changed since their promulgation, and the choice of the appropriate modern terminology is not always a simple matter. So we end up with either a modern language version that you would see as original research, or an original version that no-one understands.
Ec
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 18/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
OR is when you go out and test the evidence yourself. Finding sources to corroborate a point is called research, not original research.
No. In Wikipedia, OR is when you do the interpretation of evidence yourself. We should simplify the OR rule to make this clearer: "Wikipedians are dumb. We cannot interpret, only repeat."
So, in theory every entry could be written by a bot, eh?
/me imagines RamBot adding articles on every court decision and piece of legislation...
I'm manually writing articles on pieces of legislation - sadly the data isn't available to make it bot-generable, otherwise I'd set that going and tidy the results up.
Which neatly brings out another aspect of pushing-OR. I open my copy of "Tudor Constituional Documents", and proceed to write something like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridges_Act_1530 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highways_Act_1555
The problem is, all that the source contains is (a translation of?) the original text; I've recast it in a more modern style and converted from long and tedious legalese to a fairly comprehensible precis, but I've done it solely working from the original and not from any secondary synopsis of the Act.
Is this original research? If not, why not - where does "rewriting" end and "interpreting" begin? Does it depend on the complexity of the source document?
I think I'm in the clear - but I'm curious to know where we would draw a line on this sort of thing.
You can't possibly draw a clear line on this sort of thing. Nevertheless there is a clear parallel between what you have done with these statutes and writing a synopsis of a novel based on nothing other than reading it. In doing so one does not add interpretive commentary, though there is no prohibition against translation.
What would make this more interesting would be to add a copy of the referenced acts to Wikisource. A preferred source would be the oldest one findable in the original language of the time. Joseph Robson Tanner died in 1931 so his version would be in the public domain. The edition that you cite was a reprint of the 1930 second edition.
Ec
On 12/18/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So, in theory every entry could be written by a bot, eh?
Presentation, organisation and filtering are pretty tricky. But yeah.
Steve
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:04:34 -0800 (PST), zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
Now I log into a well-known depository of legal journals and search for this issue. I get about 20 hits. Then I look at each of these hits (articles published in peer-reviewed law journals) and in all cases the writer gives opinion A.
Ok, so now I am itching to write in Wikipedia something like: "The consensus amongst legal scholars is that opinion A is correct" (or similar), with a footnote stating the evidence.
In which case, surely there will be a legal text you can cite which says just that?
Guy (JzG)
On 12/17/06, zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
there is a legal issue about which there are two popular opinions, say A and B.
so now I am itching to write in Wikipedia something like: "The consensus amongst legal scholars is that opinion A is correct" (or similar),
Question: what results, if any, were retruned for Opinion B?
Comment: "The consensus amongst legal scholars is that opinion A is most current", would meet both NOR & NPOV.
nobs
zero 0000 wrote:
Here is a scenario that explores the boundaries of what counts as Original Reseach. Suppose there is a legal issue about which there are two popular opinions, say A and B.
Now I log into a well-known depository of legal journals and search for this issue. I get about 20 hits. Then I look at each of these hits (articles published in peer-reviewed law journals) and in all cases the writer gives opinion A.
Ok, so now I am itching to write in Wikipedia something like: "The consensus amongst legal scholars is that opinion A is correct" (or similar), with a footnote stating the evidence.
Can I do that? My sources were the best that exist, and everything I did can be verified easily by anyone with a good library. On the other hand, I have drawn my own conclusions from these observations so maybe I'm afoul of the No Original Research policy.
I tend to think it's ok because the conclusions I drew were the same as any reasonable person would draw, and these conclusions don't require any private information. I admit it is a boundary case though. What do you think?
That sort of conclusion about the consensus is sensible, and I don't see how it could possibly be contrary to original research guidelines. How you handle opinion B is more tricky. You began by saying it was "popular"; there must have been some basis for saying that so the popularity needs to be dealt with.
Ec