This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
The section on OR is a mess. The current phrasing is:
This is an overly complicated way of describing a relatively simple concept, and is also wrong in a few ways. Most obviously, a literal reading of it states that "material counts as original research if it introduces a theory" (which General relativity does without issue) or "method of solution" (which Proof by induction achieves without straying into OR). It also says that we can't define new terms without restricting the meaning of "new" to "previously unused outside of wikipedia". Additionally, that last sentence makes me have to go back and reparse every time I read it because I naturally read "arguments that advances a point" as a single gramatically-invalid phrase.
I've worked on my previous proposal and now suggest the following text:
I think this is substantially clearer than the current phrasing, and doesn't include the problems of the current phrasing. Does anyone object to this phrasing? JulesH 15:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Go here to see what I have in mind. Basically, material stolen from Neutral Point of View (mostly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A_simple_formulation), spliced together with a bit more added by me. I believe this would resolve some of the issues - the binary nature of a threshhold, and the truth concerns. It probably still needs tweaking though.
Let us know what you think.
Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (
mail)
23:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Illustrated replacement text for the lead here. I think it makes more sense in context, but how much can you fit in the lead. (Thanks for reverting that for me Amarkov. I meant to do it myself, but the autoblocker has been fairly persistent today.) — Armed Blowfish ( mail) 22:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
(copied from
Crum375's Talk page)
Your recent reverts of my edits seem to be non-sense. I don't know at all. You said in your edit summary of
WP:ATT, " 'everything in Wikipedia must be attributable' - this edit seems to imply OR on Talk is OK". If you say that
Original Research on Talk page is OK, though I didn't edit anything concerning
WP:OR, there is obviously no problem in my edits. In addition, YOU evidently published your opinion, experience, or argument in Wikipedia. See
[1] and
[2]. Please explain the meaning of your recent reverts of
WP:ATT. --
PBeaver
23:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk pages need not be perfect. Besides, the encyclopaedia is only in the article namespace, so only the article namespace need abide by encyclopaedic standards. And most talk page comments are probably original research. I think this and I think that is original research, but essential for a discussion to reach consensus. Reserve refactoring for cases of intolerable incivility. — Armed Blowfish ( mail) 19:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we're having this discussion. Nothing we write on this page will stop WP:TALK and WP:BLP from applying to the content of talk pages. Therefore I'm not sure we need to consider the effects that ATT has on talk pages because there won't be any. PBeaver's original request was for a clarification of something that is in my experience commonly misunderstood: that it's OK to use OR on talk pages to guide us in the process of writing the encyclopedia, as long as we don't ask our readers to believe its conclusions. I don't see why any concerns that are addressed by either of the two pages I link above need interfere with us instructing editors that this is fine. JulesH 21:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
My original title was "Your contradiction" on User talk:Crum375, and I didn't change anything concerning WP:NOR or Original Researches on Talk pages. I just think you should make the meaning of "Wikipedia" clearer, this is, the range that WP:ATT should cover. I think, "Wikipedia" has two meanings at least, one is "all of the articles in article namespace in Wikipedia" and the other is "all of the things related to this Wikipedia project, including all of Talk pages, Templates, and other pages in Wikipedia project namespace(here, too)". See the upper left logo. Apparently you can see this "WIKIPEDIA" logo in all pages in Wikipedia project. Therefore, if you want to say, "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source", and "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments", you should make the meaning of "Wikipedia" clearer at the beginning of the page. I'm a beginner and was(am?) very very confused. The current begininng sentence, this is, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia — that is, a comprehensive compendium of well-established knowledge" is not enough. This configuration is not enough that you are forced to have to regulate, saying, " Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments". But, on the other hand, to improve articles and resolve disputes, anybody has to publish his/her opinions and get involved in arguments in Wikipedia. -- PBeaver 03:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What cases are Wikipedia:Attribution applicable to? See this talk page. And see the edit summaries, eg. [3]. Is this policy( WP:ATT) ordering us not to say any opinion everywhere, even Talk namespace? Has this WP:ATT denied all people's fundamental human rights, this is, freedom of speech, which is obviously attributed to and guaranteed by the Constitutions of all of the advanced countries? (I can't believe it.) If so, you can't say anything meaningful here and there in Wikipedia. After all, all Talk pages are no use. Before my editting, and now, WP:ATT says, Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments, but this Talk page and others are obviously provided for all kind of editors as places to publish our(their) opinions, experiences, or arguments. In fact, even Crum375 said his opinion and editted without indicating the reliable reason to deny freedom of speech in Wikipedia. Apparently, "Wikipedia" has the two meanings. One is only articles in article namespace in Wikipedia, and the other all pages in Wikipedia project. "Wikipedia" used in the sentrence such as "everything in Wikipedia must be attributable" seems to be identical with one of Wikipedia is not. This "Wikipedia" means all Wikipedia's articles in article namespace, not opinions, experiencers, arguments, etc on other namespaces. Besides, the sentences such as "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia — that is, a comprehensive compendium of well-established knowledge", and, "everything in Wikipedia must be attributable" - these sentences, I think, can never imply "opinions, experiences, arguments, and OR on Talk pages are OK". They seem to imply that opinions, experiences, arguments, and OR on Talk pages are not OK as well as on article pages. Crum375 published his opinion and experience, saying, "I have a problem with implying that we can freely publish OR in Talk pages etc. [4] But I didn't say such a thing. I didn't make such a edit. I only want to make the meaning of "Wikipedia" clear. My edits have been already reverted twice by User:Crum375. So, someone, please improve Wikipedia:Attributions as it doesn't have a mass of contradictions. I only mean, "Be accurate and make it reasonable". -- PBeaver 03:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I ran into a debate at Talk:AACS_encryption_key_controversy, probably not the only one of its kind, in which some people have claimed that using a Web search engine as a reference violates WP:NOR or is not a reliable source (or now WP:ATT). I believe these searches may sometimes have problems with WP:V but are otherwise good references.
If consensus supports me, I'd like to see a bit of this discussion added to the WP:ATT policy to avoid many future debates on talk pages. Mike Serfas 14:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have twice used a google search as an inline reference for something that I wasn't sure really needed a reference for one reason or another (such as I thought it was probably already covered by noninline references) and I was too lazy to adequately documment a fact with mostly unimportant yet actual conditions/limitations (true but ... (ref) except for ... (ref) yet this possibility has never been observed (ref)). A made up example of when I feel it is appropriate would be "the sky is blue http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22the+sky+is+blue%22+&btnG=Google+Search" in an article where the details of this claim are not important, yet for some reason there is a need to provide a cite (such as someone stuck "fact" on it). WAS 4.250 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I think it's time to concede the point. WP:LINKS is already the consensus, and that manual's exception - that the search engine link can be properly used when it's the subject of the article - is probably the best answer. I don't like the idea of replacing "citation needed" with "go look it up yourself" as a link. I also don't believe that trade secrecy or ad skewing are any worse for search engines than news media. Writing the article about the search engine rather than using the search engine - that really is a better style. Mike Serfas 22:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
The section on OR is a mess. The current phrasing is:
This is an overly complicated way of describing a relatively simple concept, and is also wrong in a few ways. Most obviously, a literal reading of it states that "material counts as original research if it introduces a theory" (which General relativity does without issue) or "method of solution" (which Proof by induction achieves without straying into OR). It also says that we can't define new terms without restricting the meaning of "new" to "previously unused outside of wikipedia". Additionally, that last sentence makes me have to go back and reparse every time I read it because I naturally read "arguments that advances a point" as a single gramatically-invalid phrase.
I've worked on my previous proposal and now suggest the following text:
I think this is substantially clearer than the current phrasing, and doesn't include the problems of the current phrasing. Does anyone object to this phrasing? JulesH 15:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Go here to see what I have in mind. Basically, material stolen from Neutral Point of View (mostly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A_simple_formulation), spliced together with a bit more added by me. I believe this would resolve some of the issues - the binary nature of a threshhold, and the truth concerns. It probably still needs tweaking though.
Let us know what you think.
Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (
mail)
23:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Illustrated replacement text for the lead here. I think it makes more sense in context, but how much can you fit in the lead. (Thanks for reverting that for me Amarkov. I meant to do it myself, but the autoblocker has been fairly persistent today.) — Armed Blowfish ( mail) 22:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
(copied from
Crum375's Talk page)
Your recent reverts of my edits seem to be non-sense. I don't know at all. You said in your edit summary of
WP:ATT, " 'everything in Wikipedia must be attributable' - this edit seems to imply OR on Talk is OK". If you say that
Original Research on Talk page is OK, though I didn't edit anything concerning
WP:OR, there is obviously no problem in my edits. In addition, YOU evidently published your opinion, experience, or argument in Wikipedia. See
[1] and
[2]. Please explain the meaning of your recent reverts of
WP:ATT. --
PBeaver
23:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk pages need not be perfect. Besides, the encyclopaedia is only in the article namespace, so only the article namespace need abide by encyclopaedic standards. And most talk page comments are probably original research. I think this and I think that is original research, but essential for a discussion to reach consensus. Reserve refactoring for cases of intolerable incivility. — Armed Blowfish ( mail) 19:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we're having this discussion. Nothing we write on this page will stop WP:TALK and WP:BLP from applying to the content of talk pages. Therefore I'm not sure we need to consider the effects that ATT has on talk pages because there won't be any. PBeaver's original request was for a clarification of something that is in my experience commonly misunderstood: that it's OK to use OR on talk pages to guide us in the process of writing the encyclopedia, as long as we don't ask our readers to believe its conclusions. I don't see why any concerns that are addressed by either of the two pages I link above need interfere with us instructing editors that this is fine. JulesH 21:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
My original title was "Your contradiction" on User talk:Crum375, and I didn't change anything concerning WP:NOR or Original Researches on Talk pages. I just think you should make the meaning of "Wikipedia" clearer, this is, the range that WP:ATT should cover. I think, "Wikipedia" has two meanings at least, one is "all of the articles in article namespace in Wikipedia" and the other is "all of the things related to this Wikipedia project, including all of Talk pages, Templates, and other pages in Wikipedia project namespace(here, too)". See the upper left logo. Apparently you can see this "WIKIPEDIA" logo in all pages in Wikipedia project. Therefore, if you want to say, "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source", and "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments", you should make the meaning of "Wikipedia" clearer at the beginning of the page. I'm a beginner and was(am?) very very confused. The current begininng sentence, this is, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia — that is, a comprehensive compendium of well-established knowledge" is not enough. This configuration is not enough that you are forced to have to regulate, saying, " Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments". But, on the other hand, to improve articles and resolve disputes, anybody has to publish his/her opinions and get involved in arguments in Wikipedia. -- PBeaver 03:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What cases are Wikipedia:Attribution applicable to? See this talk page. And see the edit summaries, eg. [3]. Is this policy( WP:ATT) ordering us not to say any opinion everywhere, even Talk namespace? Has this WP:ATT denied all people's fundamental human rights, this is, freedom of speech, which is obviously attributed to and guaranteed by the Constitutions of all of the advanced countries? (I can't believe it.) If so, you can't say anything meaningful here and there in Wikipedia. After all, all Talk pages are no use. Before my editting, and now, WP:ATT says, Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments, but this Talk page and others are obviously provided for all kind of editors as places to publish our(their) opinions, experiences, or arguments. In fact, even Crum375 said his opinion and editted without indicating the reliable reason to deny freedom of speech in Wikipedia. Apparently, "Wikipedia" has the two meanings. One is only articles in article namespace in Wikipedia, and the other all pages in Wikipedia project. "Wikipedia" used in the sentrence such as "everything in Wikipedia must be attributable" seems to be identical with one of Wikipedia is not. This "Wikipedia" means all Wikipedia's articles in article namespace, not opinions, experiencers, arguments, etc on other namespaces. Besides, the sentences such as "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia — that is, a comprehensive compendium of well-established knowledge", and, "everything in Wikipedia must be attributable" - these sentences, I think, can never imply "opinions, experiences, arguments, and OR on Talk pages are OK". They seem to imply that opinions, experiences, arguments, and OR on Talk pages are not OK as well as on article pages. Crum375 published his opinion and experience, saying, "I have a problem with implying that we can freely publish OR in Talk pages etc. [4] But I didn't say such a thing. I didn't make such a edit. I only want to make the meaning of "Wikipedia" clear. My edits have been already reverted twice by User:Crum375. So, someone, please improve Wikipedia:Attributions as it doesn't have a mass of contradictions. I only mean, "Be accurate and make it reasonable". -- PBeaver 03:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I ran into a debate at Talk:AACS_encryption_key_controversy, probably not the only one of its kind, in which some people have claimed that using a Web search engine as a reference violates WP:NOR or is not a reliable source (or now WP:ATT). I believe these searches may sometimes have problems with WP:V but are otherwise good references.
If consensus supports me, I'd like to see a bit of this discussion added to the WP:ATT policy to avoid many future debates on talk pages. Mike Serfas 14:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have twice used a google search as an inline reference for something that I wasn't sure really needed a reference for one reason or another (such as I thought it was probably already covered by noninline references) and I was too lazy to adequately documment a fact with mostly unimportant yet actual conditions/limitations (true but ... (ref) except for ... (ref) yet this possibility has never been observed (ref)). A made up example of when I feel it is appropriate would be "the sky is blue http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22the+sky+is+blue%22+&btnG=Google+Search" in an article where the details of this claim are not important, yet for some reason there is a need to provide a cite (such as someone stuck "fact" on it). WAS 4.250 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I think it's time to concede the point. WP:LINKS is already the consensus, and that manual's exception - that the search engine link can be properly used when it's the subject of the article - is probably the best answer. I don't like the idea of replacing "citation needed" with "go look it up yourself" as a link. I also don't believe that trade secrecy or ad skewing are any worse for search engines than news media. Writing the article about the search engine rather than using the search engine - that really is a better style. Mike Serfas 22:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)