[WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 17, Issue 7

Wed Dec 8 17:17:49 UTC 2004

As wikipedia grows and evolves, standards will change, hopefully become 
clearer, and in some cases, I think, should become more stringent.  I think 
this is the case with original research.  The Apple Pie article is 
informative and well-written -- and does have some outside links.  But if 
as we grow we want to be taken seriously, claims about the gendered nature 
of "American as apple pie" need to be sourced.  The fact is, there are 
sources out there.  For our articles not to provide sources accomplishes 
two negative things.  First, it makes our editors appear lazy, as we are 
unwilling to do a little more work to acknowledge where our analysis comes 
from.  Second, it makes wikipedia less useful as a gateway to further research.

That said, the article is primarily about an object and does not involve 
much interpretation or analysis.  As I read others' views and see more 
examples, my view is starting to firm up as this: if the article makes no 
interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims, it can rely on primary 
sources (and thus, be a secondary source).  But if the article is to make 
interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims, it must rely on secondary 
sources (and thus, be a tertiary source).

Re: The league of distinguished gentlemen. I agree strongly with John.  I 
disagree with Charles, who writes "It's a kind of goofy pedantic point that 
personal knowledge of something should be disqualified."  On the contrary, 
this is what rules like "no original research" or "no personal essays" is 
all about.  Look, lets say I am a particle physicist and I have conducted 
research on muons and want to write the Wikipedia article on muons.  I 
should still have to back up my claims with references to published 
work.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a substitute for a journal or 
newspaper.

Steve

>Message: 3
>Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:57:06 -0500
>From: Delirium <delirium at hackish.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] original research
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <41B4B992.2080000 at hackish.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>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
>
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 08:37:59 -0800
>From: Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] original research
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <41B5DC67.8000609 at epoptic.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>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 at epoptic.com | swamp will take care of the alligators.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:22:05 -0000
>From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] original research
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <004c01c4dc81$4749b040$9e7c0450 at Galasien>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 01:43:48 +0800
>From: John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] original research
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <41B5EBD4.3050802 at gawab.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>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]])
>

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701