[WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?

[phoebe ayers]

On 4/2/07, wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Guy Chapman aka JzG
>
> > Look up a fact?  No problem.  Join the dots from a series of facts you
> > looked up?  Original research, in my book.
>
> I was recently working on an article (not in Wikipedia) on the phrase
> "Slippery slope," which these days usually means "a course leading
> inexorably to disaster." I wanted to support a statement that although there
> _are_ old uses of the phrase in its modern meaning, it became much more
> popular starting around 1980.
>
> My public library (and _many_ others) provide online access to a
> searchable full page-image database of complete back issues of the New York
> Times. In a few minutes, I was able to compile this:
>
> Hits on exact phrase "slippery slope", all article types, ProQuest
> Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) (a database available
> to patrons of many public libraries)
>
> 1857-99: 5 (average about 1 per decade)
> 1900-49: 41 (average 8.2 per decade)
> 1950-59: 11
> 1960-69: 23
> 1970-79: 36
> 1980-89: 144
> 1990-99: 402
>
> Well, can I use this in an article? Under Wikipedia's present rules, I
> don't think so.
>
> And yet.
>
> It is certainly original research. But it's verifiable, sensu Wikipedia,
> in that it the database is very widely available so it's easy to confirm my
> results. In fact it's easier than verifying an obscure print publication
> with no online copy. And, in this particular case, my assemblage of facts is
> intellectually honest: it is reasonable to want to know the history of the
> phrase's use, and this is a reasonable way to find out. This is not a
> selective assembly of facts made for the purpose of suggesting a biassed
> conclusion.
>
> And I was _not_ able to find a published source that said in so many words
> that the phrase bloomed in popularity around 1980.
>
> Granted this _is_ original research, what exactly is the harm in it?
>
> Other than its being the first step on a slippery slope, of course.


A nice example :)

Well, the OED, generally recognized as the gold standard in etymology, lists
the first use of the term in a figurative sense ("leading to disaster")  in
1951: *"1951* J.
FLEMING<http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-f.html#j-fleming>
*Man who looked Back* x. 132 You go off down the slippery slope; it'll do
you good." There are two more quotations, one from 1964 and one form 1979.
There are of course earlier uses of the phrase but they are not meant in the
same way. Seems to me that to really make your case based on your original
research in the NYT, you'd need to check every single use of the citation to
make sure they were talking about a slippery slope (figuratively, as in
leading to disaster) and not a slippery slope (literally). Did you do this?
I can't tell from your message here. Furthermore, there are other factors
that could affect usage that have nothing to do with the popularity of the
phrase -- the number of articles in the paper may have increased in the
1980s (and thus the opportunities for using any phrase), stylistic
guidelines for using "slang" phrases may have changed, etc. etc.

I think that's one of the fundamental problems with original research: you
never know how *good* someone's research is. At least when it's printed in
other sources, you have some assurance of outside editorial checking (or can
check on it yourself, because it's published and you can track down a record
of someone's claims). I don't really know how the OED people compile their
quotes, but I trust them to do a good job at it and as professional
etymologists have an understanding of the issues involved that far exceeds
mine, and because it's directly printed in the OED, there's a record that
can be accessed long after we all stop working on Wikipedia.

-- phoebe