I think the policy "no original research" is one of our most important policies, and essential to the integrity of our project as an encyclopedia. Recently Jimbo pointed out that the policy was originally developed to deal with physics cranks, but that it could apply to history as well -- but perhaps, with some difficulty. I agree that the policy should apply to all forms of research. I've been thinking about the way the policy is formulated and think it can be improved. I have mad ea suggestion on the talk page, and I'd appreciate comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#On_secondar...
I am very confident of the substantive point I am trying to make, but less confident about the wording. Whether I am right or wrong, this issue requires some debate now because a number of people have expressed confusion about our policy,
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
I think the policy "no original research" is one of our most important policies, and essential to the integrity of our project as an encyclopedia.
One of the interesting things that has been starting to emerge, and I expect will happen more and more as WP deepens its coverage, is that the integration of different subject areas is turning up inconsistencies between the specialists in those areas. For instance, the US Navy has apparently fabricated some of the "fish names" used for its submarines, a historical detail that seems to have gone mostly unnoticed for half a century, but has now been made glaringly obvious by our attempts to cross-reference with our fish articles.
This shouldn't change our policy about original research, but I can see WP *creating* a demand for new original research, to answer questions that have come up. It might be worthwhile to create an "open problems" page listing issues where we've done our best and come up dry, and advertise it to researchers looking to pump up CVs for the tenure committee. 1/2 :-)
Stan
Charles Matthews (charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com) [041206 06:48]:
Stan Shebs wrote
[...] but I can see WP *creating* a demand for new original research, to answer questions that have come up.
I don't think 'original research' should cover original scholarship. That's a stretch.
I don't think it is. Wikipedia is not somewhere people writing on a subject should be coming to new conclusions.
- d.
David Gerard wrote
Charles Matthews wrote I don't think 'original research' should cover original scholarship.
That's
a stretch.
I don't think it is. Wikipedia is not somewhere people writing on a
subject
should be coming to new conclusions.
Take [[apple pie]], which cites an original source. WP doesn't need to police whether the conclusions drawn are safely derivative or not. (That's apple sauce - sorry.) Any more than if I wander around Cambridge and see something encyclopedic, I need first to check that it's in a guidebook.
That being said, 'secondary source' is a good enough definition to go into a WP mission statement, such as 'master secondary source on the Web'.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
Take [[apple pie]], which cites an original source. WP doesn't need to police whether the conclusions drawn are safely derivative or not. (That's apple sauce - sorry.) Any more than if I wander around Cambridge and see something encyclopedic, I need first to check that it's in a guidebook.
Yeah, this is somewhat of a tricky issue. My personal barometer is that if I'm documenting facts with a minimum of interpretation, then all I need is some reference for the facts. But if I'm making an interpretation, I try to confine it to interpretations that have been made before, rather than trying to synthesize primary sources myself.
In a few cases, like [[industrial music]], there's no authoritative scholarship in the field (indeed, very little scholarship at all), so some amount of original research contentiously creeps in, but there's still an attempt to document "prevailing opinion", as far as information on it can be found, and trying as much as possible to avoid making novel musicological arguments and categorizations.
-Mark
--- Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote
[...] but I can see WP *creating* a demand for new original
research, to
answer questions that have come up.
I don't think 'original research' should cover original scholarship. That's a stretch.
Charles
I'm not sure I understand this distinction, so let me give an example. In the field of music, there are a number of genres that use very simple, stark and emotional lyrics about poverty and bad luck, use sparse, acoustic accompaniment, and are played/invented by a group of poor people, often an ethnic or religious minority. The most famous example is the blues. Many music publications will compare a genre like Brazilian samba or Greek rembetika to the blues because it shares these traits -- these comparisons occur in a wide variety of publications, and it seems to be generally accepted that these similarities are notable, despite there being no historical relationship between the genres. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever specifically studied or documented this phenomenon; it's existence is purely limited to a reference here and there in an article on some other subject.
I put a list of such genres on the [[list of genres of the blues]], along with an explanation (the list is separated from the styles with a historical relationship to the blues). Would this count as original research? I didn't create a new observation, but put other peoples' observations together in a new way.
Just in case you're interested, here's a quote which is fairly direct. Ironically, it doesn't mention the blues and does note the similarity of being from urban port cities, which wouldn't apply to the blues.
:Thus, if we take together the Fado of Lisbon, the Tango of Buenos-Aires and the Rembetika of Athens, we will note firstly that all of them emerged a little before or after the middle of the 19th century in poor districts of the big port cities of the nascent industry, attracting people from the country or from abroad, and who were confined to a marginal existence. And if we look for other parallels in the development of these urban popular cultures, we will find them again: first, their obscure and repressed beginnings, then their discovery and appropriation by elements of the higher social classes, later their acceptance and admission by the establishment (often after their success outside of the native land) before ending as a subject of tourist explorations.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
Tucci wrote
I'm not sure I understand this distinction, [...]
The [[scholarship]] article is not bad. I like the definition elsewhere at [[rigour]] - wrote it myself - as 'quality control of information'; but I can see that others might find it narrow. Anyway, on a narrow definition ,I can't see the problem with Wikipedians checking facts and being critical about source material. Five minutes of googling shows that you need all that.
Charles
I have recently noticed another form of what I consider to be "original research," and I'd like to see if the consensus agrees with me.
The article [[The League of Distinguished Gentlemen]] purports to describe a secret society at Creighton University. It clearly was written by the secret society himself and is currently listed for deletion. A popular reason given in the votes for deletion is "unverifiable," the rebuttal to which is "you can't verify it because it's a /truly/ secret secret society!"
All of which is only mildly amusing, but did lead me to contemplate the possibility of a /real/ truly secret secret society. Even if such an Illuminatus really did exist, and someone really were able to penetrate it, it seems to me that the resulting exposé would be original research, and not appropriate for Wikipedia.
Thus, it seems to me that all unverifiable claims about secret societies are logically either (A) untrue, in which case they should be deleted, or (2) true, in which case they are original research and should be deleted.
Comments?
-- Sean Barrett | Remember your priorities. Draining the sean@epoptic.com | swamp will take care of the alligators.
Sean Barrett wrote
Even if such an Illuminatus really did exist, and someone really were able to penetrate it, it seems to me that the resulting exposé would be original research, and not appropriate for Wikipedia.
Think we should stick with 'Original research' being an 'argument to delete', and not a 'proof of non-encyclopedic nature'. It's a kind of goofy pedantic point that personal knowledge of something should be disqualified.
Charles
Publish a book about it. If the society is interesting enough to be of note, sufficient pop culture should arise surrounding it to justify an article.
The incident you mention is indeed original rsearch - that is why we need an external source. Original research cannot be verified - that is why we need an external source. The inclusionists harp on it - "But it's VERIFIABLE! We gotta' keep it!" Without a source not from Wikipedia, this is not verifiable at all.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Sean Barrett wrote:
I have recently noticed another form of what I consider to be "original research," and I'd like to see if the consensus agrees with me.
The article [[The League of Distinguished Gentlemen]] purports to describe a secret society at Creighton University. It clearly was written by the secret society himself and is currently listed for deletion. A popular reason given in the votes for deletion is "unverifiable," the rebuttal to which is "you can't verify it because it's a /truly/ secret secret society!"
All of which is only mildly amusing, but did lead me to contemplate the possibility of a /real/ truly secret secret society. Even if such an Illuminatus really did exist, and someone really were able to penetrate it, it seems to me that the resulting exposé would be original research, and not appropriate for Wikipedia.
Thus, it seems to me that all unverifiable claims about secret societies are logically either (A) untrue, in which case they should be deleted, or (2) true, in which case they are original research and should be deleted.
Comments?
-- Sean Barrett | Remember your priorities. Draining the sean@epoptic.com | swamp will take care of the alligators.
Actually the 'inclusionist' are usually harping on about deletion of things that are verifiable by several external sources. I have never seen the usual suspect object to something that genuinely cannot be verified externally. Mark
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Publish a book about it. If the society is interesting enough to be of note, sufficient pop culture should arise surrounding it to justify an article.
The incident you mention is indeed original rsearch
- that is why we
need an external source. Original research cannot be verified - that is why we need an external source. The inclusionists harp on it - "But it's VERIFIABLE! We gotta' keep it!" Without a source not from Wikipedia, this is not verifiable at all.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Sean Barrett wrote:
I have recently noticed another form of what I
consider to be
"original research," and I'd like to see if the
consensus agrees with me.
The article [[The League of Distinguished
Gentlemen]] purports to
describe a secret society at Creighton University.
It clearly was
written by the secret society himself and is
currently listed for
deletion. A popular reason given in the votes for
deletion is
"unverifiable," the rebuttal to which is "you
can't verify it because
it's a /truly/ secret secret society!"
All of which is only mildly amusing, but did lead
me to contemplate
the possibility of a /real/ truly secret secret
society. Even if such
an Illuminatus really did exist, and someone
really were able to
penetrate it, it seems to me that the resulting
expos� would be
original research, and not appropriate for
Wikipedia.
Thus, it seems to me that all unverifiable claims
about secret
societies are logically either (A) untrue, in which case they should be deleted,
or
(2) true, in which case they are original research
and should be deleted.
Comments?
-- Sean Barrett | Remember your priorities.
Draining the
sean@epoptic.com | swamp will take care of the
alligators.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Exactly. I was using that to make the point that even by your average inclusionist's standards, this article is unsalvageable without an outside source.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Mark Richards wrote:
Actually the 'inclusionist' are usually harping on about deletion of things that are verifiable by several external sources. I have never seen the usual suspect object to something that genuinely cannot be verified externally. Mark
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Publish a book about it. If the society is interesting enough to be of note, sufficient pop culture should arise surrounding it to justify an article.
The incident you mention is indeed original rsearch
- that is why we
need an external source. Original research cannot be verified - that is why we need an external source. The inclusionists harp on it - "But it's VERIFIABLE! We gotta' keep it!" Without a source not from Wikipedia, this is not verifiable at all.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
John Lee (johnleemk@gawab.com) [041208 04:45]:
The inclusionists harp on it - "But it's VERIFIABLE! We gotta' keep it!" Without a source not from Wikipedia, this is not verifiable at all.
I eagerly await you either (a) posting a link from the history to "inclusionists" (plural, as you pluralise) demanding an article be kept with no sources other than Wikipedia, as you seem to be describing; or (b) admitting that you're blowing smoke.
- d.
Sorry! Misunderstood! Mark
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
John Lee (johnleemk@gawab.com) [041208 04:45]:
The inclusionists harp on it - "But it's VERIFIABLE! We gotta' keep it!" Without a source
not from Wikipedia,
this is not verifiable at all.
I eagerly await you either (a) posting a link from the history to "inclusionists" (plural, as you pluralise) demanding an article be kept with no sources other than Wikipedia, as you seem to be describing; or (b) admitting that you're blowing smoke.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I refer you to my response to Mark Richards.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
David Gerard wrote:
John Lee (johnleemk@gawab.com) [041208 04:45]:
The inclusionists harp on it - "But it's VERIFIABLE! We gotta' keep it!" Without a source not from Wikipedia, this is not verifiable at all.
I eagerly await you either (a) posting a link from the history to "inclusionists" (plural, as you pluralise) demanding an article be kept with no sources other than Wikipedia, as you seem to be describing; or (b) admitting that you're blowing smoke.
- d.
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Sean Barrett wrote:
I have recently noticed another form of what I consider to be "original research," and I'd like to see if the consensus agrees with me.
The article [[The League of Distinguished Gentlemen]] purports to describe a secret society at Creighton University. It clearly was written by the secret society himself and is currently listed for deletion. A popular reason given in the votes for deletion is "unverifiable," the rebuttal to which is "you can't verify it because it's a /truly/ secret secret society!"
All of which is only mildly amusing, but did lead me to contemplate the possibility of a /real/ truly secret secret society. Even if such an Illuminatus really did exist, and someone really were able to penetrate it, it seems to me that the resulting expos� would be original research, and not appropriate for Wikipedia.
Thus, it seems to me that all unverifiable claims about secret societies are logically either (A) untrue, in which case they should be deleted, or (2) true, in which case they are original research and should be deleted.
Actually, the reason we should have a "Quick delete" -- if not a delete on sight -- ipolicy on any article about a secret society -- or anything related to the Illuminati -- is very simple:
fnord
Geoff
Geoffrey Burling stated for the record:
Actually, the reason we should have a "Quick delete" -- if not a delete on sight -- ipolicy on any article about a secret society -- or anything related to the Illuminati -- is very simple:
I'm sorry, you are not cleared to quick-delete the Illuminati.
Sean Barrett wrote:
The article [[The League of Distinguished Gentlemen]] purports to describe a secret society at Creighton University. It clearly was written by the secret society himself and is currently listed for deletion. A popular reason given in the votes for deletion is "unverifiable," the rebuttal to which is "you can't verify it because it's a /truly/ secret secret society!"
All of which is only mildly amusing, but did lead me to contemplate the possibility of a /real/ truly secret secret society. Even if such an Illuminatus really did exist, and someone really were able to penetrate it, it seems to me that the resulting exposé would be original research, and not appropriate for Wikipedia.
Thus, it seems to me that all unverifiable claims about secret societies are logically either (A) untrue, in which case they should be deleted, or (2) true, in which case they are original research and should be deleted.
Comments?
It's a bit like talking about conspiracy theories, or the cabal that controls Wikipedia. :-)
Ec
You can document what other people have said about these things (moon hoax, reptilian humanoids, flat earth etc) as long as it is in the context of reporting what someone has claimed. Mark
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
The article [[The League of Distinguished
Gentlemen]] purports to
describe a secret society at Creighton University.
It clearly was
written by the secret society himself and is
currently listed for
deletion. A popular reason given in the votes for
deletion is
"unverifiable," the rebuttal to which is "you
can't verify it because
it's a /truly/ secret secret society!"
All of which is only mildly amusing, but did lead
me to contemplate
the possibility of a /real/ truly secret secret
society. Even if such
an Illuminatus really did exist, and someone
really were able to
penetrate it, it seems to me that the resulting
expos� would be
original research, and not appropriate for
Wikipedia.
Thus, it seems to me that all unverifiable claims
about secret
societies are logically either (A) untrue, in which case they should be deleted,
or
(2) true, in which case they are original research
and should be deleted.
Comments?
It's a bit like talking about conspiracy theories, or the cabal that controls Wikipedia. :-)
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
At 04:25 PM 12/7/2004 -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
You can document what other people have said about these things (moon hoax, reptilian humanoids, flat earth etc) as long as it is in the context of reporting what someone has claimed. Mark
This exact same issue came up on Talk:Freemasonry just a few weeks back, discussing what to do when Masonic secrets wind up on Wikipedia, and this is the solution that I proposed there too. I expect that someday when the [[Masonic rituals and practices]] (or whatever) article gets written it'll be mostly "Author A says X in book N, and Author B says Y in book M. Both of them say P, but they differ on Q." The credibility and credentials of the various sources would have to be discussed too.
Yes, I agree. Where we would be in trouble on the no orginal research is if one of us reported on our personal experiences with masonic rituals. Mark
--- Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
At 04:25 PM 12/7/2004 -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
You can document what other people have said about these things (moon hoax, reptilian humanoids, flat earth etc) as long as it is in the context of reporting what someone has claimed. Mark
This exact same issue came up on Talk:Freemasonry just a few weeks back, discussing what to do when Masonic secrets wind up on Wikipedia, and this is the solution that I proposed there too. I expect that someday when the [[Masonic rituals and practices]] (or whatever) article gets written it'll be mostly "Author A says X in book N, and Author B says Y in book M. Both of them say P, but they differ on Q." The credibility and credentials of the various sources would have to be discussed too.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Ray Saintonge stated for the record:
It's a bit like talking about conspiracy theories, or the cabal that controls Wikipedia. :-)
Ec
The first rule of the cabal that controls Wikipedia is "there is no cabal that controls Wikipedia." The second rule of the cabal that controls Wikipedia is "there is no cabal that controls Wikipedia."
The third rule is, "you are not allowed to talk about the cabal that controls Wikipedia."
--Slowking Man
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:39:46 -0800, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
The first rule of the cabal that controls Wikipedia is "there is no cabal that controls Wikipedia." The second rule of the cabal that controls Wikipedia is "there is no cabal that controls Wikipedia."