Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
A natural consequence of allowing the Arbitration Committee seriously consider contents would be ArbCom elections based on such issues as where one stands in the Israel/Palestine conflict.
This is one way to construe 172's suggestions -- but it is not the only way. I certainly do not believe that the solution to conflicts over content can come down to "you are right, you are wrong." Surely there are other ways. here is one: a committee that would specialize in enforcing policies concerning content, e.g. NPOV, No original research (which is not, as Charles Matthews suggested, subordinate to NPOV, or it shouldn't be. They are equally important; neither one trumps the other).
This is clearly different from ArbCom which as members of ArbCom have made abundantly clear deals only with conflicts between two or more users, and matters of behavior, not content. Although two users can and often do come into conflict over NPOV or NOR, this is categorically different from the kinds of conflicts ArbCom deals with. ArbCom deals with violations of certain policies (specifically behavioral) caused by a conflict between users. What I and I think 172 and SlimVirgin are talking about is conflicts between users caused by violations of other policies (concerning content).
Obviously in order to intervene in a conflict over NPOV or No original research a committee would have to be very attentive to content. But I am sure that no matter what one's beliefs about Jesus, Zionism, or fascism, experienced editors can reach an agreement over what does or doesn't constitute NPOV or original research.
This might not resolve all of the issues 172 and SlimVirgin raise, but I think it would go far to address some of them.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
This is clearly different from ArbCom which as members of ArbCom have made abundantly clear deals only with conflicts between two or more users, and matters of behavior, not content. Although two users can and often do come into conflict over NPOV or NOR, this is categorically different from the kinds of conflicts ArbCom deals with. ArbCom deals with violations of certain policies (specifically behavioral) caused by a conflict between users. What I and I think 172 and SlimVirgin are talking about is conflicts between users caused by violations of other policies (concerning content).
Obviously in order to intervene in a conflict over NPOV or No original research a committee would have to be very attentive to content. But I am sure that no matter what one's beliefs about Jesus, Zionism, or fascism, experienced editors can reach an agreement over what does or doesn't constitute NPOV or original research.
The current hope is that the community can deal with this, if people who behave badly are taken out of the system. That is, the community will spot and remove original research, and if someone keeps readding it despite a consensus that it should be removed, the person will eventually be banned.
I'd be open to a committee policing for original research at some point, if that turns out to be necessary. Policing for NPOV is a lot more complicated.
-Mark
From: Delirium delirium@hackish.org
The current hope is that the community can deal with this, if people who behave badly are taken out of the system. That is, the community will spot and remove original research, and if someone keeps readding it despite a consensus that it should be removed, the person will eventually be banned.
I'd be open to a committee policing for original research at some point, if that turns out to be necessary. Policing for NPOV is a lot more complicated.
Well, as I noted on the list a couple of days ago, policing for original research seems equally difficult, when even long time editors consider original research to be "simple facts" or "simple deductive reasoning." Perhaps the [[Wikipedia:No original research]] page needs to be updated with examples which make that point that if it really is that simple, someone else will have done the work for you already, and all you need to do is quote them.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote
Perhaps the [[Wikipedia:No original research]] page needs to be updated
with
examples which make that point that if it really is that simple, someone else will have done the work for you already, and all you need to do is quote them.
Literally speaking, conversion of temperatures from Fahrenheit to Celsius would fall foul of this. And numerous other things: such as conversion of dates out of one calendar system into another, metrication, currency conversion, inverting family relationships from 'nephew' to 'uncle' ...
It is far from obvious that _every instance_ of every such low-level operation can be supported as a literal quote. I don't expect this to have much effect on editors. But surely drawing up such a policy that is drafted in too sweeping a way is going to inhibit something valuable, sometime, somewhere.
There was an argument brought forward on the Featured Article status discussion for [[The Cantos]], that everything said about the interpretation for this poem should be drawn from the secondary literature. Now, the argument had some merit: the article was amended in specific ways. But considering that the article itself summarised (expertly, and that part was nothing to do with me) all 107-odd cantos of this 500 page poem, there was also a slightly ridiculous quality to arguing that you couldn't just provide a helpful summary of themes extracted from all that, to help the reader get into 80K of text.
And I honestly think the article might never have got started at all, if NOR had clouded my judgement about getting some scaffolding in place.
Charles
From: "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
JAY JG wrote
Perhaps the [[Wikipedia:No original research]] page needs to be updated
with
examples which make that point that if it really is that simple, someone else will have done the work for you already, and all you need to do is quote them.
Literally speaking, conversion of temperatures from Fahrenheit to Celsius would fall foul of this. And numerous other things: such as conversion of dates out of one calendar system into another, metrication, currency conversion, inverting family relationships from 'nephew' to 'uncle' ...
No, that's a strawman argument. "Deductive reasoning" becomes original research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions. Now if you were to assert that based on genetics and "simple deductive reasoning" that uncles were more closely related to nephews than aunts were to nieces, that would be original research, and you'd have to find some source which supported it.
Jay.
Jay JG wrote
"Deductive reasoning" becomes original research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in
an
article, not when used to do unit conversions.
I have to say that I'm not comfortable with 'content policy' being made into something slightly different in this way. Policy on content fundamentally is there to help sort out what content is encyclopedic in nature. It is not really there - though clearly will be used by some - to tell you when you may or may not argue a certain way (as if the process was inherently adversarial). One obviously shouldn't end up with a path-dependent criterion, for example.
Charles
From: "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
Jay JG wrote
"Deductive reasoning" becomes original research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in
an
article, not when used to do unit conversions.
I have to say that I'm not comfortable with 'content policy' being made into something slightly different in this way.
It's not being made into anything different at all; rather, it has been that all along, but people often fail to abide by it. Quoting from [[Wikipedia:No original research]]
"A wikipedia entry (including a part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is... it purports to refute another idea."
It couldn't be simpler, really, which is why it is astonishing that even some long time editors seem unable to understand and/or accept it.
Policy on content fundamentally is there to help sort out what content is encyclopedic in nature.
Right. And, at least for Wikipedia, it has been decided that "original reasearch" is not "encyclopedic in nature". And one of the things defined as "original research" is material that "purports to refute another idea."
It is not really there - though clearly will be used by some - to tell you when you may or may not argue a certain way (as if the process was inherently adversarial).
But of course it is there to do just that (among other things). For example, Wikipedia clearly insists (via the NPOV policy) that you may not argue only one position on a subject, but must bring countering views citing various holders of positions, inevitably introducing an adversarial element to articles. And the original research policy insists that one cannot argue one's own views, but rather must present other's views, and that tempered with the caveat that extreme minority views need not be presented at all.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
But of course it is there to do just that (among other things). For example, Wikipedia clearly insists (via the NPOV policy) that you may not argue only one position on a subject, but must bring countering views citing various holders of positions, inevitably introducing an adversarial element to articles. And the original research policy insists that one cannot argue one's own views, but rather must present other's views, and that tempered with the caveat that extreme minority views need not be presented at all.
It may be worth mentioning that recent ArbCom rulings have done their best to bludgeon home this aspect of NPOV: that all significant views on a disputed topic need mention.
("Significant" then may become a bone of contention^Weditorial discussion. Creationism, for example, is of tremendous social and political importance, but is very unlikely to achieve significant play in almost any scientific article about biology. Osama bin Laden has strong views on America and on Jews, but his views are unlikely to play a great, if any, role in [[Jew]] or [[United States]]; they will only end up in more directly relevant articles because most editors would find it *intolerably stupid* otherwise. The view that Australia is in fact a republic is so insignificant a view by numbers that it is only advocated as [[original research]]. Etc. Etc.)
- d.
JAY JG wrote:
From: "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
JAY JG wrote
Perhaps the [[Wikipedia:No original research]] page needs to be
updated with
examples which make that point that if it really is that simple,
someone
else will have done the work for you already, and all you need to
do is
quote them.
Literally speaking, conversion of temperatures from Fahrenheit to Celsius would fall foul of this. And numerous other things: such as conversion of dates out of one calendar system into another, metrication, currency conversion, inverting family relationships from 'nephew' to 'uncle' ...
No, that's a strawman argument. "Deductive reasoning" becomes original research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions. Now if you were to assert that based on genetics and "simple deductive reasoning" that uncles were more closely related to nephews than aunts were to nieces, that would be original research, and you'd have to find some source which supported it.
That's certainly an extremist view. It implies that a crackpot theory is acceptable as long as it has previously been published somewhere else. However, if the public thought that the theory was so ridiculous that they felt it a waste of time to dispute it we would not be allowed to publish a refutation on the grounds that it was original research. You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
Ec
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:55:19 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: It implies that a crackpot theory
is acceptable as long as it has previously been published somewhere else. However, if the public thought that the theory was so ridiculous that they felt it a waste of time to dispute it we would not be allowed to publish a refutation on the grounds that it was original research. You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
It would be acceptable so long as it had been published somewhere reputable and credible, and the chances of it being crackpot would therefore be low. If the public genuinely thought a theory so ridiculous that no one had bothered to challenge it, it almost certainly wouldn't have a place in Wikipedia. This is why the NOR, NPOV, and cite sources policies should always be considered jointly, as each policy serves to illuminate the meaning of the others. Jointly, they would be able to deal with the kind of example you raise.
Sarah
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:15:57 -0700, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:55:19 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: It implies that a crackpot theory
is acceptable as long as it has previously been published somewhere else. However, if the public thought that the theory was so ridiculous that they felt it a waste of time to dispute it we would not be allowed to publish a refutation on the grounds that it was original research. You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
It would be acceptable so long as it had been published somewhere reputable and credible, and the chances of it being crackpot would therefore be low. If the public genuinely thought a theory so ridiculous that no one had bothered to challenge it, it almost certainly wouldn't have a place in Wikipedia. This is why the NOR, NPOV, and cite sources policies should always be considered jointly, as each policy serves to illuminate the meaning of the others. Jointly, they would be able to deal with the kind of example you raise.
Just a few thoughts on this:
1. *Who* defines "reputable"? If crackpot is just defined as "not reputable" then that just shifts the point of discretion somewhere else; it doesn't resolve it. 2. "The public" rarely challenges theories. "Pundits", "journalists", "writers", and "academics" challenge theories. The vast majority of "the public" is informationally mute. Which again gets back to the "who?" question.
Of course, the "who?" question seems to be the most divisive one here, and I'm not sure it *should* be resolved. I think removing than tension, however satisfying it may feel at first, will destroy the engine which makes this online knowledge project qualitatively better than any of the other attempts (nupedia and everything2 come to mind as extreme approachs to answering the "who?" question in a binding way, and both seem to fail in my opinion for that reason). Okay, now I'm just rambling on...
FF
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:51:04 -0500, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:15:57 -0700, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
It would be acceptable so long as it had been published somewhere reputable and credible, and the chances of it being crackpot would therefore be low. If the public genuinely thought a theory so ridiculous that no one had bothered to challenge it, it almost certainly wouldn't have a place in Wikipedia. This is why the NOR, NPOV, and cite sources policies should always be considered jointly, as each policy serves to illuminate the meaning of the others. Jointly, they would be able to deal with the kind of example you raise.
Just a few thoughts on this:
- *Who* defines "reputable"? If crackpot is just defined as "not
reputable" then that just shifts the point of discretion somewhere else; it doesn't resolve it. 2. "The public" rarely challenges theories. "Pundits", "journalists", "writers", and "academics" challenge theories. The vast majority of "the public" is informationally mute. Which again gets back to the "who?" question.
To provide specific context, consider journals such as "Infinite Energy", with a bimonthly distribution of 3000--5000, which are hard to distinguish in any quantitative fashion from 'reputable' journals. However, this journal is devotes itself to publishing papers on free energy, cold fusion, an perpetual motion; and running headlines like "Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century." I think many of us would agree that a paper does not become reputable, or any less original research, for being published in such a journal.
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:33:22 -0500, Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
To provide specific context, consider journals such as "Infinite Energy", with a bimonthly distribution of 3000--5000, which are hard to distinguish in any quantitative fashion from 'reputable' journals. However, this journal is devotes itself to publishing papers on free energy, cold fusion, an perpetual motion; and running headlines like "Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century." I think many of us would agree that a paper does not become reputable, or any less original research, for being published in such a journal.
Well, the problem is that any sort of approach to this question, even the appeal to "many of us," is going to be doing what the anthropologists call "boundary work."
Without boundaries, we have no realiability and we have no standards. With boundaries, we will be constantly accused of censorship, bias, etc. Constantly accused, of course, by the people on the other side of the boundaries, who we will have already regulated to the category of "negligible" or "fringe" by our very erection of the boundary.
Trying to come up with a "methodological" approach to the boundary definition ("only peer-reviewed journals with circulations of X") will unfortunately just shift the impetus to the interrogation of those standards once again (anybody can claim they work via peer review, but can it be verified? Even all that without getting into the question of the limits of peer review, i.e. the Sokal or Bogdanov affairs).
My take on this: There is no easy resolution, no rule which will work rigorously. The answer is just to accept that putting forth some general standards with some amount of flexibility will hopefully work out for the "best." Problems will be solved in a somewhat ad hoc manner and there will be compromise involved over things which ideally ought not need compromise. Some disputes will inevitably occur and some good contributors will inevitably become too frustrated and will leave. So what we have here is a system which often privileges patience over truth. But in this sense Wikipedia is more of a marketplace than a utopia, and perhaps that's for the better in the long run.
Again, I think I have maybe elaborated too much, and perhaps my analytic biases are showing... FF
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
JAY JG wrote:
From: "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
JAY JG wrote
Perhaps the [[Wikipedia:No original research]] page needs to be
updated with
examples which make that point that if it really is that simple,
someone
else will have done the work for you already, and all you need to do
is
quote them.
Literally speaking, conversion of temperatures from Fahrenheit to Celsius would fall foul of this. And numerous other things: such as conversion of dates out of one calendar system into another, metrication, currency conversion, inverting family relationships from 'nephew' to 'uncle' ...
No, that's a strawman argument. "Deductive reasoning" becomes original research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions. Now if you were to assert that based on genetics and "simple deductive reasoning" that uncles were more closely related to nephews than aunts were to nieces, that would be original research, and you'd have to find some source which supported it.
That's certainly an extremist view.
Ray, labels like this aren't helpful.
It implies that a crackpot theory is acceptable as long as it has previously been published somewhere else.
Nothing of the sort. The "NPOV policy" indicates that extreme minority views need not be presented in an article, so that issue is well covered.
However, if the public thought that the theory was so ridiculous that they felt it a waste of time to dispute it we would not be allowed to publish a refutation on the grounds that it was original research.
You wouldn't need to refute it, since you wouldn't need to cite it in the first place, as above.
You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
I don't think so; what do you think I have forgotten?
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
JAY JG wrote:
No, that's a strawman argument. "Deductive reasoning" becomes original research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions. Now if you were to assert that based on genetics and "simple deductive reasoning" that uncles were more closely related to nephews than aunts were to nieces, that would be original research, and you'd have to find some source which supported it.
That's certainly an extremist view.
Ray, labels like this aren't helpful.
Deductive reason is the application of logic to the facts as already presented. The uncle/nephew vs. aunt/niece is simply a nonsense comment pulled out of imagination. It has no research attached to it at all, original or otherwise; your theory doesn't even define what you mean by "more closely related. So before you complain about the strawmen of others you should stop using them yourself.
You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
I don't think so; what do you think I have forgotten?
That the purpose was to avoid becoming overrun with loose cannon theories.
Ec
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net JAY JG wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
JAY JG wrote:
No, that's a strawman argument. "Deductive reasoning" becomes original research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions. Now if you were to assert that based on genetics and "simple deductive reasoning" that uncles were more closely related to nephews than aunts were to nieces, that would be original research, and you'd have to find some source which supported it.
That's certainly an extremist view.
Ray, labels like this aren't helpful.
Deductive reason is the application of logic to the facts as already presented.
Easy to do in simple cases; quite complex when the issue is something like politics or international law. And, in the latter case, if done by the editor themselves, generally (and wisely) forbidden as original research as well, as per the No original research policy.
The uncle/nephew vs. aunt/niece is simply a nonsense comment pulled out of imagination. It has no research attached to it at all, original or otherwise; your theory doesn't even define what you mean by "more closely related. So before you complain about the strawmen of others you should stop using them yourself.
Well, I could have used real examples from articles I've seen, but that would have bogged the list down, when it could have been doing more important things like arguing about whether or not 172's contributions were "balanced" or "pro-communist screeds".
You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
I don't think so; what do you think I have forgotten?
That the purpose was to avoid becoming overrun with loose cannon theories.
Including those developed and presented by Wikipedia editors. If a particular argument hasn't been published somewhere reputable, then it too is a "loose cannon theory".
Jay.
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
JAY JG wrote: No, that's a strawman argument. "Deductive reasoning" becomes original research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions.
Deductive reason is the application of logic to the facts as already presented. The uncle/nephew vs. aunt/niece is simply a nonsense comment pulled out of imagination.
Ray - Jay is correct in his description of original research. His point is simply that deduction (that is, drawing a conclusion from a set of premises) should not be used by editors to make a point not already made in a credible publication. It should not be used to make cases for certain positions; and in particular, editors should not go on to present their conclusions as though they're established facts, which happens a lot. When you're doing a unit conversion, you're just counting, and if your conversion is correct, you'll find it published elsewhere anyway, so it wouldn't be original.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
JAY JG wrote: No, that's a strawman argument. "Deductive reasoning" becomes original research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions.
Deductive reason is the application of logic to the facts as already presented. The uncle/nephew vs. aunt/niece is simply a nonsense comment pulled out of imagination.
Ray - Jay is correct in his description of original research. His point is simply that deduction (that is, drawing a conclusion from a set of premises) should not be used by editors to make a point not already made in a credible publication.
This sounds like an argument for the commandment, "Thou shalt not think."
It should not be used to make cases for certain positions; and in particular, editors should not go on to present their conclusions as though they're established facts, which happens a lot.
Presenting conclusions as though they were facts is quite another matter, and you're right it does happen a lot.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ray - Jay is correct in his description of original research. His point is simply that deduction (that is, drawing a conclusion from a set of premises) should not be used by editors to make a point not already made in a credible publication.
This sounds like an argument for the commandment, "Thou shalt not think."
When it comes to Wikipedia, that's a pretty good commandment. Original thinking on matters of content is beyond the scope of the encyclopedia---we're here just to summarize the thinking that's already been done. We're also particularly ill-equipped to judge novel thinking. If you make a novel historical argument, citing dozens of sources in the process, you should submit it to a history journal to be peer-reviewed, not to us.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ray - Jay is correct in his description of original research. His point is simply that deduction (that is, drawing a conclusion from a set of premises) should not be used by editors to make a point not already made in a credible publication.
This sounds like an argument for the commandment, "Thou shalt not think."
When it comes to Wikipedia, that's a pretty good commandment. Original thinking on matters of content is beyond the scope of the encyclopedia---we're here just to summarize the thinking that's already been done. We're also particularly ill-equipped to judge novel thinking. If you make a novel historical argument, citing dozens of sources in the process, you should submit it to a history journal to be peer-reviewed, not to us.
Now you open up the question, "What is novel?" I absolutely agree that we are ill-equipped to judge novel thinking, Too many look at this from the distorted extremist lenses. If the dozens of sources that I use for a historical argument are all "peer reviewed" sources my argument is no longer novel. If we follow the severely restrictive approach to "original research" that some people are proposing our encyclopedia would be full of nothing but dumbed-down pap.
Ec
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net
If we follow the severely restrictive approach to "original research" that some people are proposing our encyclopedia would be full of nothing but dumbed-down pap.
It's not a proposal, it's an existing policy, and, when applied, it is helping save the encyclopedia from being a repository for crank theories and arguments presented as fact. The notion that it will somehow create an encyclopedia filled with " nothing but dumbed-down pap" is a bald assertion which has no basis in reality.
Jay.
The notion that it will somehow create an encyclopedia filled with " nothing but dumbed-down pap" is a bald
assertion
which has no basis in reality.
Jay
I would agree that Ec overstates the case. The point that seems to need making is that none of the content policies actually _makes for_ brilliant prose, which is one thing we also want. If clumsily or over-insistently applied, any reliability-oriented policy can make for lame writing. Academic books don't read like Tom Clancy.
So I say that content policies are also subordinate to the goal of creating awesomeness in the encyclopedia. I like to think in terms of two extremes, Blandopedia and Gonzopedia. The spaced-out stuff has to be squeezed out. But playing safe will only tend to accentuate the bias towards WP's existing strengths.
Charles
From: "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com I would agree that Ec overstates the case. The point that seems to need making is that none of the content policies actually _makes for_ brilliant prose, which is one thing we also want. If clumsily or over-insistently applied, any reliability-oriented policy can make for lame writing. Academic books don't read like Tom Clancy.
So I say that content policies are also subordinate to the goal of creating awesomeness in the encyclopedia. I like to think in terms of two extremes, Blandopedia and Gonzopedia. The spaced-out stuff has to be squeezed out. But playing safe will only tend to accentuate the bias towards WP's existing strengths.
Do we really want "brilliant prose"? Is that even possible in an Encyclopedia? What would "brillaint prose" look like in the context of an Encyclopedia; do we have any articles which contain examples? I would have thought that "clear and concise" would have been more of the kind of things we are aiming for as regards prose, though I'm not stating that as an adamant point.
Jay.
Jay JG wrote
Do we really want "brilliant prose"?
Used to.
Is that even possible in an Encyclopedia? What would "brillaint prose" look like in the context of an Encyclopedia; do we have any articles which contain examples? I would
have
thought that "clear and concise" would have been more of the kind of
things
we are aiming for as regards prose, though I'm not stating that as an adamant point.
I don't want brilliant prose in an article on heart disease. Decent writing always helps popular science (cf. New Scientist). In current affairs it is far from useless (cf. The Economist); we can't use the Economist's style book unrevised, but there is a lot in having it crisp and articulate. ''Clear and concise" is more the idealised civil servant's style - pretty good if the point is to get succinct versions of arguments written without distortion.
I think most of the style books make points about keeping vitality in the prose, not just conforming to 'rules'.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
Jay JG wrote
Do we really want "brilliant prose"?
Used to.
Specifically, [[Wikipedia:Brilliant prose]] was the old name for what is now [[Wikipedia:Featured articles]].
Is that even possible in an Encyclopedia? What would "brillaint prose" look like in the context of an Encyclopedia; do we have any articles which contain examples? I would have thought that "clear and concise" would have been more of the kind of things we are aiming for as regards prose, though I'm not stating that as an adamant point.
I don't want brilliant prose in an article on heart disease. Decent writing always helps popular science (cf. New Scientist).
I think "clear and concise" probably constitutes "brilliant prose" for our purposes.
In current affairs it is far from useless (cf. The Economist); we can't use the Economist's style book unrevised, but there is a lot in having it crisp and articulate.
I'm a BIG fan of The Economist's incredibly tight writing style, though they happily put in POVs and unsupported evaluations (though that's fine for what they do rather than what we do). I consciously emulate their tightness when writing for Wikipedia.
''Clear and concise" is more the idealised civil servant's style - pretty good if the point is to get succinct versions of arguments written without distortion.
Yep.
I think most of the style books make points about keeping vitality in the prose, not just conforming to 'rules'.
Indeed. Excellence in writing should not be a focal point for suspicion.
- d.
David Gerard wrote
I'm a BIG fan of The Economist's incredibly tight writing style, though
they
happily put in POVs and unsupported evaluations (though that's fine for
what
they do rather than what we do).
Me too. The content can be rubbish (classic example: surrogate motherhood treated effectively as free market in babies).
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
David Gerard wrote
I'm a BIG fan of The Economist's incredibly tight writing style, though
they happily put in POVs and unsupported evaluations (though that's fine for
what they do rather than what we do).
Me too. The content can be rubbish (classic example: surrogate motherhood treated effectively as free market in babies).
That sounds like a reasonable position on their part to be criticizing this kind of prostitution.
Ec
David Gerard wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Jay JG wrote
In current affairs it is
far from useless (cf. The Economist); we can't use the Economist's style book unrevised, but there is a lot in having it crisp and articulate.
I'm a BIG fan of The Economist's incredibly tight writing style, though they happily put in POVs and unsupported evaluations (though that's fine for what they do rather than what we do). I consciously emulate their tightness when writing for Wikipedia.
What this proves is that we are talking about two mutually independent characteristics.
Ec
JAY JG wrote:
From: "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com I would agree that Ec overstates the case. The point that seems to need making is that none of the content policies actually _makes for_ brilliant prose, which is one thing we also want. If clumsily or over-insistently applied, any reliability-oriented policy can make for lame writing. Academic books don't read like Tom Clancy.
So I say that content policies are also subordinate to the goal of creating awesomeness in the encyclopedia. I like to think in terms of two extremes, Blandopedia and Gonzopedia. The spaced-out stuff has to be squeezed out. But playing safe will only tend to accentuate the bias towards WP's existing strengths.
Do we really want "brilliant prose"? Is that even possible in an Encyclopedia? What would "brillaint prose" look like in the context of an Encyclopedia; do we have any articles which contain examples? I would have thought that "clear and concise" would have been more of the kind of things we are aiming for as regards prose, though I'm not stating that as an adamant point.
I'm sure that a lot of authors of software manuals live with the illusion that their writing is clear and concise.
Brilliant prose keeps the reader engaged. When a writing needs to deal with opposing views on a subject coherent narative prose is even more important. If each sentence must immediately be followed by a sentence expressing the alternate POV it will be much less readable than if the pros and cons can be expressed in two separate paragraphs. Awkward prose chases readers away.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Now you open up the question, "What is novel?" I absolutely agree that we are ill-equipped to judge novel thinking, Too many look at this from the distorted extremist lenses. If the dozens of sources that I use for a historical argument are all "peer reviewed" sources my argument is no longer novel. If we follow the severely restrictive approach to "original research" that some people are proposing our encyclopedia would be full of nothing but dumbed-down pap.
I suppose I'd define "novel" as "making a substantial claim that hasn't been made before", which is obviously subjective, but I don't think it's possible to make a clear-cut definition.
For example, one of the culinary articles (which I forget at the moment) had a section on the etymology of a word that was essentially a reconstruction of the word's history personally done by a Wikipedian, through a combination of primary and secondary sources. That, to me, is original etymological research and not appropriate for first publication in Wikipedia. We instead should cite only published etymologies, such as "the OED claims this, but some other guy in his book _Blah_ claims this other thing."
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Now you open up the question, "What is novel?" I absolutely agree that we are ill-equipped to judge novel thinking, Too many look at this from the distorted extremist lenses. If the dozens of sources that I use for a historical argument are all "peer reviewed" sources my argument is no longer novel. If we follow the severely restrictive approach to "original research" that some people are proposing our encyclopedia would be full of nothing but dumbed-down pap.
I suppose I'd define "novel" as "making a substantial claim that hasn't been made before", which is obviously subjective, but I don't think it's possible to make a clear-cut definition.
For example, one of the culinary articles (which I forget at the moment) had a section on the etymology of a word that was essentially a reconstruction of the word's history personally done by a Wikipedian, through a combination of primary and secondary sources. That, to me, is original etymological research and not appropriate for first publication in Wikipedia. We instead should cite only published etymologies, such as "the OED claims this, but some other guy in his book _Blah_ claims this other thing."
On Wiktionary if someone were to present such etymological research I would be inclined to say, "Well done!" I would usually not consider it as "original" but as a synthesis of existing sources. The OED is a well-respected source, but it's not the only one that I use. More often than not the difference between the OED and other etymologies is a matter of detail and degree, and not of completely contradictory views. I also regard the secondary sources as published etymologies. As yet, I know of no rule that confines us to a set of select orthodox etymologies. I read the term "published etymology" as any published work that deals in whole or in part with etymology no matter when it was published.
Ec
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
JAY JG wrote: No, that's a strawman argument. "Deductive reasoning" becomes original research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions.
Deductive reason is the application of logic to the facts as already presented. The uncle/nephew vs. aunt/niece is simply a nonsense comment pulled out of imagination.
Ray - Jay is correct in his description of original research. His point is simply that deduction (that is, drawing a conclusion from a set of premises) should not be used by editors to make a point not already made in a credible publication.
This sounds like an argument for the commandment, "Thou shalt not think."
No, Ray, it's just the No original research policy, and it allows for plenty of thought. Maybe you should re-read it.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net JAY JG wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
JAY JG wrote:
No, that's a strawman argument. "Deductive reasoning" becomes original research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions. Now if you were to assert that based on genetics and "simple deductive reasoning" that uncles were more closely related to nephews than aunts were to nieces, that would be original research, and you'd have to find some source which supported it.
That's certainly an extremist view.
Ray, labels like this aren't helpful.
Deductive reason is the application of logic to the facts as already presented.
Easy to do in simple cases; quite complex when the issue is something like politics or international law. And, in the latter case, if done by the editor themselves, generally (and wisely) forbidden as original research as well, as per the No original research policy.
But your reference was at least stated to be based in genetics. The reference to editors is meaningless since we are all editors. There's very little in the way of original research done here in politics; you're confusing original research with original speculation.
The uncle/nephew vs. aunt/niece is simply a nonsense comment pulled out of imagination. It has no research attached to it at all, original or otherwise; your theory doesn't even define what you mean by "more closely related. So before you complain about the strawmen of others you should stop using them yourself.
Well, I could have used real examples from articles I've seen, but that would have bogged the list down, when it could have been doing more important things like arguing about whether or not 172's contributions were "balanced" or "pro-communist screeds".
"Bogged the list down" = "exposed your ideas to attack". The POV that you push does not need a basis in reality. As for 172, it's a question of his bringing balance to some points by removing the half-truths and innuendos promoted by the anti-communist wolf pack
You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
I don't think so; what do you think I have forgotten?
That the purpose was to avoid becoming overrun with loose cannon theories.
Including those developed and presented by Wikipedia editors. If a particular argument hasn't been published somewhere reputable, then it too is a "loose cannon theory".
Again the reference to Wikipedia editors is menaingless. Are you suggesting yourself as the judge of what is reputable? :-D :-D :-D
Ec
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
Deductive reason is the application of logic to the facts as already presented.
Easy to do in simple cases; quite complex when the issue is something like politics or international law. And, in the latter case, if done by the editor themselves, generally (and wisely) forbidden as original research as well, as per the No original research policy.
But your reference was at least stated to be based in genetics. The reference to editors is meaningless since we are all editors.
Huh? Of course we're all editors. And editors can't use Wikipedia articles to present novel theses etc.
There's very little in the way of original research done here in politics; you're confusing original research with original speculation.
Hmm, interesting use of a semantic argument, but irrelevant to the No original research policy.
Well, I could have used real examples from articles I've seen, but that would have bogged the list down, when it could have been doing more important things like arguing about whether or not 172's contributions were "balanced" or "pro-communist screeds".
"Bogged the list down" = "exposed your ideas to attack". The POV that you push does not need a basis in reality.
Huh? I haven't brought my own ideas or POV here, nor are they "under attack." The No original research policy is clear; whether or not you accept is another matter entirely.
As for 172, it's a question of his bringing balance to some points by removing the half-truths and innuendos promoted by the anti-communist wolf pack
"Anti-communist wolf pack"? Sheesh! The comment was meant to inject a lighter note into the discussion, though in hindsight I suppose I should have said that the list could return to the more important task of deciding whether or not Australia is a constitutional monarchy or a republic, since this kind of over the top response from you on the 172 debate should have been entirely predictable.
You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
I don't think so; what do you think I have forgotten?
That the purpose was to avoid becoming overrun with loose cannon theories.
Including those developed and presented by Wikipedia editors. If a particular argument hasn't been published somewhere reputable, then it too is a "loose cannon theory".
Again the reference to Wikipedia editors is menaingless. Are you suggesting yourself as the judge of what is reputable? :-D :-D :-D
Sorry Ray, you're not making any sense. Original research is research done by Wikipedia editors and presented in Wikipedia articles, as opposed to reasearch published in other reputable venues.
Jay.
Jay JG:
"Deductive reasoning" becomes original research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions. Now if you were to assert that based on genetics and "simple deductive reasoning" that uncles were more closely related to nephews than aunts were to nieces, that would be original research, and you'd have to find some source which supported it.
Ray Saintonge:
That's certainly an extremist view. It implies that a crackpot theory is acceptable as long as it has previously been published somewhere else.
I was grateful for the clarification later given by Jay JG. Where I differ, myself, is in not taking "idea" from the policy page to mean any proposition, however concrete or factual, but to have some debatable general or abstract content (e.g. the theory of relativity).
Charles