You're definitely on to something. Who ever wrote a book about [[BatMUD]]? That article was written by people who have played and what's the harm? This sort of thing makes Wikipedia more interesting. But please, no original research about [[general relativity]].
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: William Pietri [mailto:william@scissor.com] Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 10:07 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research: our secret pleasure?
Consider, for a moment, this edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Addams_Family_%28pinball%29&am...
It is a minor modification to our description of "The Addams Family" pinball machine. Because I happen to own one of those machines, I know that this edit is partly right but almost certainly partly wrong. However, I haven't played it much lately, so my first instinct was to commit the grievous sin of original research by playing a few games.
In thinking about this further, there are whole classes of article just like this one, full of uncited information that is probably original research. The unifying characteristics seem to be:
- If the article is somewhat inaccurate, there is little risk of
real-world harm, 2. The topic is of relatively low importance, 3. Having something on the topic is a net benefit to our readers, and 4. There is a wide enough base of people with knowledge of the topic that the article can generally be verified from collective personal experience.
Personally, I think these articles are worth keeping. Our readers get information they want. It also seems like a good place for newbies to contribute: it's a topic they are interested in, there is plenty for them to fix, and if they don't get it exactly right they won't immediately be reverted and slapped with a talk page notice containing eight links to policy shortcuts as they would on, say, [[Evolution]].
As far as I can tell, though, there is no written policy or guideline for this kind of thing. Is that the case? It's probably for the best, honestly, as they are doing fine without it, and I imagine creating a special exception for this kind of thing would lead to all sorts of disruptive wikilawyering.
Regardless, I thought it was interesting how much has been built in the outskirts of our metropolis. Not up to our building codes, but not a big problem, and better than nothing.
William
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, a common, similar, case is popular culture articles in general, but most of them have a loophole: a movie, book, etc. is itself a source for its own content. Using a pinball machine in a similar way is, of course, original research, but it's also an excellent example of how Ignore All Rules applies to anything, even original research.
The main problem you'll face is rules-lawyer vandals, who pop into random articles to delete all original research, then leave.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
Well, a common, similar, case is popular culture articles in general, but most of them have a loophole: a movie, book, etc. is itself a source for its own content. Using a pinball machine in a similar way is, of course, original research, but it's also an excellent example of how Ignore All Rules applies to anything, even original research.
The difference is that a book/album/movie is published in a way that observing a machine isn't.
The answer, of course, is to adjust the original research policy to allow for such reasonable situations, not simply rely on IAR to muddle through.
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
The difference is that a book/album/movie is published in a way that observing a machine isn't.
A common "middle ground" along this spectrum would be computer games, which are published in the way of books and such but which are played in the manner of a mechanical pinball game (and are often much more complex). It is very common in Wikipedia to use computer games as primary sources, so the requirement that they be "played" is evidently not a major concern.
The answer, of course, is to adjust the original research policy to allow for such reasonable situations, not simply rely on IAR to muddle through.
Indeed. I'm not sure what real difference there should be, from a wikilegalistic perspective, between a pinball machine with a manufacturing run of a thousand and a book with a publishing run of a thousand.
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
Well, a common, similar, case is popular culture articles in general, but most of them have a loophole: a movie, book, etc. is itself a source for its own content. Using a pinball machine in a similar way is, of course, original research, but it's also an excellent example of how Ignore All Rules applies to anything, even original research.
[...]The answer, of course, is to adjust the original research policy to allow for such reasonable situations, not simply rely on IAR to muddle through.
Another option is to say that the rules are what we look to when we disagree over whether or not the article is good, or at least adequate. If there is no disagreement, then the article stands. Otherwise, we can start going through the rules, which can be looked at as a catalog of thinking about problems we've had a lot.
Personally, I feel that the rules we have, like the parts on an airplane, should be the minimum number necessary to achieve the goal. Anything else slows us down. Personally, until their's a problem, I'd rather leave WP:OR untouched. I think that Ken's case of rules-lawyer vandals is better solved by judicious application of [[WP:DICK]] rather than adding more rules.
William
William Pietri wrote:
Another option is to say that the rules are what we look to when we disagree over whether or not the article is good, or at least adequate. If there is no disagreement, then the article stands. Otherwise, we can start going through the rules, which can be looked at as a catalog of thinking about problems we've had a lot.
And if there is disagreement, the source and argument must be considered. If the argument is "policy X says we can't use this" then it should be dismissed as wikilawyering. If a rational argument is presented explaining why it damages the encyclopedia, then it should of course be given consideration.
(Of course this is shaky ground. Policies exist to improve the encyclopedia, so disregarding one should be done after lots of consideration. But really, that's just repeating [[WP:IAR]], isn't it...)
On 5/27/07, Chris Howie cdhowie@nerdshack.com wrote:
And if there is disagreement, the source and argument must be considered. If the argument is "policy X says we can't use this" then it should be dismissed as wikilawyering. If a rational argument is presented explaining why it damages the encyclopedia, then it should of course be given consideration.
In most cases, that shouldn't be necessary. We create policies because, in the vast majority of cases, following them is a good idea. So we can say, "No, this shouldn't go in as it's not verifiable" each time, rather than having to say "No, this shouldn't go in because it can't be verified against a reliable source, which means that the information inside may be false or misleading, which is bad for the encyclopaedia because we aim to be accurate" (contrived example but you get the idea; it's shorthand). If we can think of a set of situations where obeying the letter of the policy wouldn't make sense, we should alter the policy so it does. Regularly relying on IAR in those situations, means the rules are wrong.
And if there is disagreement, the source and argument must be considered. If the argument is "policy X says we can't use this" then it should be dismissed as wikilawyering. If a rational argument is presented explaining why it damages the encyclopedia, then it should of course be given consideration.
In most cases, that shouldn't be necessary. We create policies because, in the vast majority of cases, following them is a good idea.
I agree. Following policy should always be the default action. If there is ever a need to violate policy, it is that which requires an explanation.
As for IAR - IAR is for situations which we didn't think of when writing policy. Planning to use IAR for a specific kind of situation is a contradiction, since it is in fact writing a new rule.
On Sat, 26 May 2007, William Pietri wrote:
Personally, I feel that the rules we have, like the parts on an airplane, should be the minimum number necessary to achieve the goal. Anything else slows us down. Personally, until their's a problem, I'd rather leave WP:OR untouched. I think that Ken's case of rules-lawyer vandals is better solved by judicious application of [[WP:DICK]] rather than adding more rules.
The problem with rules lawyer vandals is that they are, by definition, following the rules. If you revert what they do, they'll just change it back (they usually stick around long enough for that) and you'll end up getting into a revert war and being considered the vandal for inserting original research or whatever.
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
Well, a common, similar, case is popular culture articles in general, but most of them have a loophole: a movie, book, etc. is itself a source for its own content. Using a pinball machine in a similar way is, of course, original research, but it's also an excellent example of how Ignore All Rules applies to anything, even original research.
The difference is that a book/album/movie is published in a way that observing a machine isn't.
The answer, of course, is to adjust the original research policy to allow for such reasonable situations, not simply rely on IAR to muddle through.
Or better still allow more room for flexibility in the application of NOR. Simply adjusting the policy serves only to shift the battle lines. Inittially the policy dealt with some serious originality in the writing. Since then it has become almost as though to say that anything where the sourcing is not perfectly nailed down must be original research. Sometimes this leaves the impression that sourced falacy is preferable to unsourced facts.
There are some subject areas where stricter rules are needed, such as living persons, but generally we need to avoid having practice driven by the reckless minority.
Ec
Ken Arromdee wrote:
Well, a common, similar, case is popular culture articles in general, but most of them have a loophole: a movie, book, etc. is itself a source for its own content. Using a pinball machine in a similar way is, of course, original research, but it's also an excellent example of how Ignore All Rules applies to anything, even original research.
As much as I strongly support IAR, I also recognize that there are places where its use is inappropriate. It's really a safety valve to be used when the sane application of rules produces nonsensical solutions.
The main problem you'll face is rules-lawyer vandals, who pop into random articles to delete all original research, then leave.
This kind of vandal is not that different from other common vandals. In the interest of NPOV ( ;-) ) they need to be given credit for one thing: leaving.
Ec