Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Great structure here. My only suggestion would be that this start with a short section titled something like "What kind of sources are regarded as reliable?" Better perhaps to start with the positive? qp10qp 15:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. "Given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it" is a fact, just like "given a definition which says that plagiarism is a cube, plagiarism has six sides" is a fact. It's a direct logical inference.
The paragraph is inappropriate because we have no reason to *care* that the Chicago Manual of Style's rules lead to a certain conclusion; the Chicago Manual of Style isn't an authority on this particular case, and probably not even on plagiarism in general. In other words, it's a reliable sources issue, not an original research issue.
And I'm aware that this example is from WP:NOR. It's a bad example there too. Ken Arromdee 22:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I may also add that the example refers to a real case, and describes it in a misleading way. See Talk:Alan Dershowitz#The debate with Norman Finkelstein. The difference between the real case and this is that in the real case, the statement that Jones (Dershowitz) didn't commit plagiarism according to the Chicago Manual of Style isn't an original invention of the Wikipedia editor at all. It's sourced to "James O. Freedman, the former president of Dartmouth College, the University of Iowa, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences." We cannot ourselves use the Chicago Manual of Style to analyze whether Dershowitz is a plagiarist, but if we have a reliable source who does that analysis, we can legitimately quote him. Ken Arromdee 01:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the plagiarism example is horribly confusing, and should be replaced. Synthesis is described as combining two statements, A and B, to reach a new conclusion C. As well as being a confusing and complicated case, the example never explains what sources A and B say, or even what sources A and B are (although source B is presumably the CMS). Without this information, the reader is left guessing at what the example is getting at, and I find it unsurprising that so many readers have come to different conclusions about what it is trying to say. In my view it should be replaced by a clear and straightforward example of synthesis. Enchanter 14:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
We need to watch the bloat here, or we'll end up with a page with the problems RS has. We also need to watch that we don't contradict the policy. I found a few sentences that were arguably inconsistent with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Do we need a separate section for each web site that anyone can contribute to? Or could we just lump MySpace, YouTube, Wikis, and so on in a single section. And maybe even combine them with blogs. That seems better to me, as the same problems apply to all:
This means the same exceptions may apply to all of them. JulesH 07:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This section in the proposal currently doesn't seem to answer the question enclosed in the section title. In the single paragraph of that section there are currently some circumstantial explanations that reliable sources can conflict (maybe amounting to something like "don't panic" as part of an answer to the initial question). But no real answer to What do I do...
May I suggest to add something in this vein as a second paragraph to that section:
When each of the differing versions are notable in their own right, are based on reliable published sources, and there is enough difference between the competing versions to be noteworthy, then proceed with what is described in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "(...) all significant published points of view are to be presented (...)", each with their own reference. An example that also the difference between the sources needs to be non-trivial: for instance, if competing official sources give a few percent difference in population numbers for an average city, that is maybe not a "notable" difference - just round the number and put "approx." before it, referring to the available reliable sources.
? -- Francis Schonken 07:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The FAQ refers to A New York Times account of a George Bush speech is a secondary source. This is creating the false impression that all newspaper articles are secondary sources, when actually, a large amount of newspapers accounts are primary sources. Wording needs to be found to make that distinction clearer. The reason I am rasing this, is that some editors are claiming that an article that appears in a small town newspaper (e.g. 'The Post Crescent" From Menosha, Wisconsin) is "a reliable secondary source", because of this FAQ, and claims that that small-town newspaper is more reliable than a book on the subject by a respected author. So, please, let's clarify these issues in the FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Back to the discussion, see what WP:RS had to say about newspapers: More recently, primary sources have been put online, such as the complete run of the London Times, the New York Times and other major newspapers. Some of these are proprietary and must be accessed through libraries; others such as “Making of America”, publishing of 19th century magazines, are open to the public.; See also what our own secondary sources say: An example of a secondary source would be the biographyof a historical figure which constructed a coherent narrative out of avariety of primary source documents, such as letters, diaries,newspaper accounts, and official records.. Clearly the FAQ is misleading editors in asserting that newspaper accounts are secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
(undent) Is a court ruling a primary source (on the ruling) or a secondary source (on the meaning of the law)? One can argue each way: appellate judges are professional scholars interpreting material, but the cases then are further subjected to analysis, especially for a case of first impression.
I wholeheartedly agree with the objective of the primary/secondary distinction. I think it a mistake to try to force a term from historical studies to neatly fit other areas. And, even among professional historians, the term does not have the same quasi-juridical import that it has on Wikipedia. Robert A.West ( Talk) 00:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If "Doesn't Wikipedia care about truth" is really the most frequently asked question about this subject, wouldn't we be doing ourselves a favour to remove the two words "not truth" from the start of Wikipedia:Verifiability? In other words, isn't any confusion about this created by the wording we ourselves have chosen in our most prominent content policy after our copyright policy? jguk 19:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, the problem is that it detracts from what Wikipedia is. If it didn't detract greatly, why is it seen as the most frequently asked question? By all means explain common misperceptions in the policy page - just do this after you have explained what the policy is. I've done enough teaching in my life to know that doing otherwise just confuses people. Greatly. jguk 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Look at the first sentence of the answer to "How do I format citations?"
At a minimum, any substantial, surprising, or controversial claim in an article should be accompanied by an inline citation . . .
I am uncomfortable with the "at minimum" formulation, especially since all articles should contain at least one substantial claim. Footnotes exist to aid the reader in locating the relevant fact, either to verification or for further research. In longer articles with many sources, this is good, but there are many articles for which footnotes would serve no purpose and would even create a distraction.
One can write a perfectly reasonable short biographical article for some members of the british peerage using three sources: the Dictionary of National Biography, Burke's Peerage and The Complete Peerage. In most cases, the entries are a page or two at most, indexed by name, and the sources simply provide a cross-check on one another. One editor even argued that s.n. (Latin, sub nomine, [look] under the name) should suffice in place of a page number. Since most of the information can be found in any of the three sources, I see no purpose in associating a particular datum with a particular source.
In a lot of mathematical articles, the oft-mentioned reason for lack of citation is an embarrassment of riches: look it up in any textbook. My proposal to solve that is a "Further reading" section, such as the Britannica used to have, which would serve both as reference and to direct interested readers. The same advantage does not apply to inline citations: the whole argument appears in any of the sources, possibly in a slightly different form. Furthermore, for GFDL reasons, the examples and diagrams are often original, so not footnotable, which would require reduplicating footnotes before and after the unsourced text. Robert A.West ( Talk) 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
"Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not reliable sources, because the content is self-published, anyone can edit them, and the current version of an article may change at any time."
That seems wrong. If you link to a diff or a particular version, it is not true that anyone can edit the version you're linking to and it's not true that the current version can change at any time.
Which means that the only objection left is that it's self-published.
Self-published sources are acceptable under some limited circumstances, so therefore it's possible for a Wiki to be a reliable source.
How about this?
"Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are self-published, so they may only be used when self-published sources are permitted. If a Wiki is used in such a manner, the source should be a specific dated version of an article, not the current version, since the current version may be edited by anyone and may change at any time." Ken Arromdee 15:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to change
to
Since (1) WP:ATT does not "demand sources" for all assertions and (2) the changed wording emphasizes that we are looking for published sources, not hearsay from experts. CMummert · talk 13:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added what ATT actually now says, and commented out the paragraph that would be a, quite controversial, change in policy. I have an idea on how to reduce this to questions, but at a minimum, this FAQ should represent what ATT proposes. If someone wants to smoth this over, great; if not, I should be back within 24 hours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
NE2, could you say exactly what the sentence you restored (in bold below) means?
MySpace: MySpace is generally not a reliable source because its material is virtually always self-published, and much of it is anonymous or pseudonymous. An exception in which it may be an acceptable primary source is when a reliable source has confirmed who it belongs to.
SlimVirgin (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
For nearly six months, the WP:NOTTRUTH section has read:
This has now been changed to a phrasing that I think is less helpful.
It seems to me that the revised version is oriented more towards a person who already understands NOR and NPOV and less towards the audience of this FAQ. It misses two points that I think are essential, and somewhat conflates WP:ATT with NPOV. First, it omits that the policy acually improves the truth-value of the encyclopedia. If we discuss who believes Foo and who believes Bar, and do so accurately, we are speaking truth. Second, it omits the relation between continual improvement and this policy: as experts change their opinions, Wikipedia expects to keep up.
The discussion about significant minority opinions and letting readers decide for themselves belongs in an NPOV FAQ. We properly exclude a significant amount of attributable material from qualified researchers because the view is obsolete, or is too new to have gained significant support, or has been rejected by the vast majority of researchers. The material passes WP:ATT, but fails other policies. Robert A.West ( Talk) 16:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
There are cases where the reliable source provides false information and the source that provides the correct information doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. In this case, the policy demands that Wikipedia include false information.
The covered bridge example is well known; the sources claim the bridge is closed; the guy who visited it saw that it's not. There's also a recent example where a vandal added a spurious entry saying someone is Iranian, and this is now being reported in reliable sources as a true fact--most likely someone just copied the vandalized information from Wikipedia, but we have no way to prove it. Ken Arromdee 22:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a paradox; not caring about the Truth is our best hope of approaching it. This is a guideline; we can afford, here, to reassure those who fear we are Uncyclopedia, and make up what we like. I think it is the case that the effect of WP:ATT will be to make us as accurate as we can hope to be; why not say this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think DCB4W is arguing over emphasis; he has a different set of concerns than I do. He seems to be chiefly concerned with the pseudo-scientists and their websites; I don't think WP:ATT can, or is intended to, deal with them. WP:NPOV#undue weight and several guidelines exist for them. Perhaps some additions to the section, outlining distinct concerns, are in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What does WP:RS have that this page or WP:ATT doesn't? Hiding Talk 21:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I did discuss it, or tried to. I also pointed out places where people wanted to use Wikipedia as a self-published source under circumstances where our current policy allows self-published sources. The objections to Wikis as sources are that
The second objection just *isn't true*, since Wikipedia allows you to link to a specific dated version, or even to a specific diff, which is less likely to change than most other web-based sources. The first and third objections are easily taken care of: use them only when self-published sources are allowed and only when there's no reasonable doubt about who the author is. It's true that the latter is a judgment call, but WP:RS *itself* says that self-published sources are allowed under certain circumstances "so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material".
It may not have been worded that exact way before, but the paragraph in fact is consistent with policy, and the flat-out statement that they are never, ever, allowed, is not. Ken Arromdee 14:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I started a new subsection. It needs expanding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added material that was originally in RS. But I am concerned that some of that text is outdated or confusing. I have cleaned up the obvious ones, but it needs further attention. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The Parent article was promoted to official policy on Feb 16. What about the FAQ page?? -- Otheus 21:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd support calling it a guideline (rule of thumb that clarifies issues around policy) Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What happened to all the new sections on this page? I can see them when I go back in the history [3], but not here. Please excuse me if I've made a stupid mistake. Sparkzilla 06:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Questions_about_the_reliability_of_specific_sources [4]
Almost everything listed there is a type of source that is nearly always self-published. Do we really need a separate section for each one? Why not combine them into one big section that discusses the problems of self-published sources in general, and lists them as examples?
— Armed Blowfish ( talk| mail) 23:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Having just spent a day arguing with an advocate of a book, much of which is criticized by general consensus, I added a new section addressed to the editor who wants to include the Truth as revealed by their pet crank.
I'm sure we've all had this argument. I tried to summarize my experience with it. I do think it belings here; one reason for guidelines is to have a central home for arguments we've had again and again.
But please tighten and refine; if you want to remove it again, please discuss here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
From time to time an editor declares that we must include the views of a some author who has not received favorable reviews, with the explanation that if the Genius received his due, we would include his views in full. He is only ignored, because he opposes patriarchy, or the liberal/conservative conspiracy (pick one), or the fiendish plots of the Foolanders; and we cannot deny the Genius's accuracy without seeing the full file, which is unpublished.
I want to echo some embedded comments above. It's, well, basically kind of silly to declare that blogs are unreliable. It's like saying "sources printed on A4 paper are unreliable". A web log is simply a medium, and the content conveyed by that medium has to be evaluated on its own merits. Jakob Nielsen's blog is a damned-well reliable source, as he is arguably the most emminent writer in the field of computer-human interface usability (and absolutely in the top five even if you have another favorite.) Notably (no pun intended) he cites sources (often to usability studies performed by his own company, but I don't see anyone, anywhere challenging them, and their methods are sound within the bounds of social science). The blog of Jimmy Smith, high school sophomore in Norman, Oklahoma, is not likely to be reliable for much of anything other than what girls Jimmy thinks are cute. But the same would almost certainly be true of a book somehow published by him, or a Jimmy's World TV show hosted by him. It's not the medium, it's the reliability of the message. The problem with blogs (and wikis) generally is not really a problem with blogs, etc., it's a problem with lack of editorial control, and that problem is something that some blogs, etc., actually escape. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 00:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I am amazed, nay stupified at how people cannot seem to grasp this concept. Thusly, I am going to go over it again. Slowly.
This is the dicdef of synthesis:
the formation of something complex or coherent by combining simpler things
Thus, the word "synthesis" is interchangable with "collection" or "combination". This is not debatable. That's the definition as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
Now let's look at the FAQ text everyone seems so intent on keeping:
Original writing is desirable; it is original ideas or new synthesis of ideas and viewpoints that violate policy.
That might initially seem acceptable, but let's replace "synthesis" with the above words which mean the exact same thing.
Original writing is desirable; it is original ideas or new combinations of ideas and viewpoints that violate policy.
Original writing is desirable; it is original ideas or new collections of ideas and viewpoints that violate policy.
Neither of those are in line with the Wikipedia policy on OR, because they effectively prohibit any article from drawing on multiple "ideas". Don't believe me? Here's an example, taken from a real article:
Research suggests that ADHD arises from a combination of various genes, many of which affect dopamine transporters. [1] Suspect genes include the 10-repeat allele of the DAT1 gene, [2] the 7-repeat allele of the DRD4 gene, [2] and the dopamine beta hydroxylase gene (DBH TaqI). [3]
Seems fine and dandy, right? But wait, look at that second sentence. It clearly uses not one, not two, but three different "ideas", or a collection/combination of ideas, if you will. And since I can't find any other source which used that exact collection/combination of ideas, that makes it a "new" collection/combination of ideas. This means it's original research, and must be removed from the article immediately.
Obviously, the above reasoning is inconsistent with the actual policy, but if someone were to edit an article based on this FAQ that would be the conclusion they would have to come to. Hence, the word "synthesis" should not appear in that sentence.
Now as to Jossi's assertion that "there's a new definition of synthesis according to policy": No. You are wrong. Try again. The word already has a well established definition in the english language. If I decided to re-define the word " pederast" to mean "experienced Wikipedia editor" and then wrote a policy FAQ using that "new definition", exactly how many seconds would it be before the FAQ was deleted and I was banned? (And yes, this is an extreme example, but I'm trying to prove a point here) The word already has a definition that almost all english speakers understand, and trying to re-define it will only confuse people.
I am amazed that this is such a big issue. This is a mind-bogglingly simple concept to grasp: the word you are intent on using has a definition that makes the sentence inconsistent with policy. I realize it's a nice-sounding word (most latin-derived words are) but no amount of shoehorning here will fit it into the FAQ properly. Someone made a bad word choice a while ago and nobody caught it until now. It's a single word; find another one to use. -- Y| yukichigai ( ramble argue check) 10:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not following either. And BTW, my comment was not that "synthesis" has been defined in policy as a term. That is a straw-man argument. What I said is that synthesis has been used in this context in WP policy, and it is a long-standing formulation as it applies to no original research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Your example on ADHD, upon which you base your case, is not original research as it is simply providing information that is well sourced and attributed without attempting to draw a conclusion or assert a synthesis of these viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have raised this before, but this is a good time to raise it again... I often come across articles that imply a synthesis but don't actually state it. ie, where the various parts of the synthesis are laid out in such a way as to strongly lead the reader to a given conclusion, but where the conclusion itself is not actually stated. In our model it would be saying: A + B (= C). When I have raised the issue at RfCs, I am often told it is fine, as long as the article just states the facts without actually reaching a conclusion. The reader can reach their own conclusions. The problem is that given the facts stated (often cherry picked) and the way they are laid out, the reader is led directly to the unstated conclusion the writer wants them to reach. Thoughts? Blueboar 15:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the example of synthesis from Wikipedia:Attribution on the grounds of it being ambiguous and hard to follow. I propose that a more straightforward example is given on this page to illustrate what Wikipedia means by an unpublished synthesis of ideas. One possible example could be:
Lots of alternative examples of what Wikipedia means by unpublished synthesis would also be possible. Any comments on whether the example is appropriate, how it could be improved, or alternative suggestions? Enchanter 22:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Putting the above together, and adding some introductory wording, I propose inserting:
==How do I avoid doing original research?==
Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.
===Example of an unpublished synthesis of published material===
Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its constituent parts have been published by reliable sources. If you have reliable sources for the edits you want to make, be careful that you're not analysing the material in a way that produces a new idea or argument of your own. Just because A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, doesn't mean that A and B can be joined in order to advance position C.
Any suggestions for improvement, objections, or alternative ideas before putting it into the FAQ? Enchanter 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This would address a situation I've run into more than once:
Could surely be made more concise, but that's the gist I'm trying to convey. See the largest thread at Talk:Albinism for a good example of why this is needed.
— SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 22:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to ask for some clarification on anonymous sources.
An anonymous source is an unnamed person or a work created by an unnamed author. Anonymous sources are not acceptable in Wikipedia, because we can't attribute the viewpoint to its author. Anonymous sources whose material is published by reliable secondary sources, such as Deep Throat in The Washington Post, are acceptable, because Wikipedia's source in this case would be the newspaper, not the anonymous source.
In the article National Union of General Workers I have been discussing the inclusion of an anti-union editorial/commentary by what appears to be an anonymous teacher that was published in Metropolis magazine Killing the Golden Goose. The source magazine is a reliable publication, having been published for 13 years or so. There is a long history of editorials in the magazine, though they are usually not anonymous. In this case, I suspect the writer was concerned about reprisals from the union. However, the person highlights some very important points about the Union's activities that I feel should at least be added as claims.
My proposed text is:
There already has been a long, long discussion about this on the Union talk page, that ended in the source being removed as being unreliable. However, the guideline above (in bold) says that anonymous sources can be used when in reliable publications. Should this particular source be included or not? Thank you for your comments. Sparkzilla 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The thread that used to be here was moved to User_talk:Ed Poor, since User:Blueboar argued this was not the right area for it. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, they can do so over at Uncle Ed's talk page. EdJohnston 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm back. Yes, it's about synthesis again. No, I'm not going to stop until the FAQ accurately reflects policy. Now that we have that out of the way....
So, after the little "incident" on the WP:A talk page (which I'm really, really sorry about) I was finally able to get a clear statement on what y'all (or at least SlimVirgin) think "synthesis" means.
Synthesis is a putting together.
So if I can take this one step further, we can swap the terms "synthesis" and "a putting together" from now on. Good, on to step two.
Step two is to examine the sentence I've changed. (repeatedly) Prior to my change it read:
Original writing is desirable; it is original ideas or new synthesis of ideas and viewpoints that violate policy.
So if we do that little word swap I described above (plus some grammar fixing) that sentence means:
Original writing is desirable; it is original ideas or a new putting together of ideas and viewpoints that violate policy.
Read that again. "A new putting together of ideas and viewpoints violates policy?" I think not. It does if that "new putting together" advances a point, but the sentence doesn't say that. It doesn't even say "can violate policy" or "may violate policy," it says that all "new putting together of ideas and viewpoints" violates policy. That is incorrect; hence, the sentence needs to be fixed.
Now, of course, comes the part where someone will inevitably say something like, "synthesis is an important part of policy, it needs to be in the FAQ." I agree, it does. Just not in that sentence. Certainly it should go in that section, and probably should have its own section of the FAQ. The problem is that the "synthesis" part of WP:NOR really cannot be adequately explained in a single sentence, certainly not in a manner that is as simple and easy to understand as is really necessary for a FAQ. After all, a FAQ is supposed to be clear, well-spoken, and so easy to understand that there is virtually no chance for people to come to incorrect conclusions regarding what it says.
Finally, I'd like you to just evaluate the new sentence as it stands after my changes:
Original writing is desirable; it is original ideas and viewpoints that violate policy.
Is that sentence not true? No. Does it in any way distort or confuse the reader about policy? No. In fact, I'd argue that because it is so simple and to the point it is vastly improved; as it stands now it is a short, simple statement that is easy to understand and remember, and goes to the very core of the WP:NOR policy: "original ideas = bad for Wikipedia." Hell, it even covers the "synthesis" issue, because a "synthesis" violation must "advance a point" to be a violation since that "point is" (say it with me now) an original idea. -- Y| yukichigai ( ramble argue check) 21:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The ability to cite references to archived Usenet articles from such services as Google Groups as a historical record of events such as software release announcements is an invaluable resource, and should certainly be an exception to the rule against citing Usenet posts. While it is agreed that a Usenet posting in itself is not an authoritative source of verifiable information, Google Groups can certainly be used as a verification that a particular Usenet article was posted on a particular date, and is quite useful as a historical record. -- Thoric 03:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This FAQ seems to indulge in the fallacy that all wikis are attempts to build encyclopedias. Now, I can think of several reasons why citing such a page would not be a terrific idea, but remember, in general a wiki is just a way to build a web site. Depending on who is allowed to edit and the policies in place, a wiki may have in principle as much reliability as any other web page. (This may, of course, be damning with faint praise.) What about, for example, software documentation which is made available in wiki form? If the documentation derives from the software developers themselves, this seems just as good a source as any other company website. As long as the citation links to the specific version of the page, what would be wrong with this?
Just an idea for consideration. Anville 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This FAQ currently states, "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources. Many of them license content under the GFDL, which might be worth importing into Wikipedia, but once imported, the material is subject to Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."
I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia should not be allowed to be used as source or reference for some fact. This will result in circular reasoning ("We should write X in Wikipedia because Wikipedia writes X here"). This type of logic is fallacious and only begs the question. (This also reiterated in [[[WP:OR]], where it states only primary and secondary sources should be used to cite statements, and tertiary sources, such as Wikipedia, are to be avoided.) However, we currently policy that states Wikipedia article can, in fact, be used as sources, per WP:SUMMARY. The policy states we can summarize the article, without giving references, so as to ensure article do not overly long. Of course, very long articles are burdensome for readers, and summaries of the main points are necessary to condense the general ideas. However, simply using a different Wikipedia article seems to violate the WP:OR policy and the one stated in this FAQ. Thoughts? ~ UBeR 03:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sanjiv swarup 07:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Are wikis reliable sources? Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources. Many of them license content under the GFDL, which might be worth importing into Wikipedia, but once imported, the material is subject to Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
My take is that the above statement on the article may have been correct three years ago.
IMHO, wikipedia IS a reliable source today.
Wikipedia has matured enough to be considered a reliable source.
The millions of users everyday definitely think so too.
Comments requested.
I tried to change this. It got reverted.
My own concern was with using statements by people on talk pages, etc., which should count as self-published sources usable in articles about the author. What discussion there is is still on this page under Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/FAQ#.22Are_Wikis_reliable_sources.3F.22 and Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/FAQ#Wikis as reliable sources
I find the objections to this to be specious. Some of them amounted to "it's difficult to do this". Fine, only allow it when someone has done it despite the difficulty. The biggest objection, that a Wiki can change at any time, is answered by using a permalink. Ken Arromdee 15:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This page (and the new Attribution page) have not included the following section of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. Why? Shouldn't it? Tazmaniacs 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I have problems with WP:ATT in general, this FAQ is a useful policy, I particulary like the extensive 'what is reliable' and 'what is not' section. Good job, and this should become a policy.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 06:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Where should i post questions about the Attribution policy (proposal)? Itayb 08:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see my post there about using parts of this policy to update WP:RS.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Radiant tagged this as Historical... but I don't think it is. As this is a sub-page of WP:ATT... which has been tagged as "Proposed"... I would think this page should be tagged the same way? Blueboar 15:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The second paragraph here in the FAQ says that: historical documents (of) ... trials are an example of a primary source. But, typically, when a court documents its' opinion, the court includes discussion of their reasoning which typically involves the court citing prior history and prior court precedence, which on its face seems it may be secondary. Under the guidelines of WP:ATT, when courts issue written opinions of court cases, should those documents be given weight as a primary source (as the FAQ seems to say) or given weight as a secondary source? SaltyBoatr 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear editors: Editor SaltyBoatr has raised some interesting points, hitting in part at something I have previously discussed in Wikipedia.
First, we can distinguish between a primary source as that term is used in Wikipedia, and Primary authority as that term is used by legal scholars (at least in the United States). A print or reprint of the actual, verbatim text of a court opinion is primary authority in the legal sense, as is the actual verbatim text of a statute, an administrative regulation, a treaty, etc. In the Wikipedia sense of a primary source, a court opinion would be a "primary source" on the issue of what the court said (whereas a law professor's treatise discussing the court opinion would be a secondary source). Similarly, in the legal sense, the professor's treatise would be Secondary authority.
At least two other points should be made: First, if for some reason you are looking to the court opinion for a pronouncement on non-legal matters such as history, then I guess you might argue that the court opinion is a secondary source -- in the Wikipedia sense -- for that limited purpose.
Second, getting back to the point about Primary authority (in the legal sense), court opinions are different from statutes, regulations, and so on. Only a small part of the actual text of a court opinion is what we call the holding (or holdings) of the case, the Precedent or "ruling" (if you will) for which that case stands. See also Stare decisis. Most of the actual verbatim text of a court opinion consists of recitation of the facts, a description of the procedural history, statement of the issues, and statements about the law which, although generally "correct," constitute non-binding material that legal scholars refer to as obiter dicta, or just "dicta." Parsing a case to separate the holding or holdings from the non-binding dicta is indeed difficult for non-lawyers. In some texts the holding or holdings is not clearly stated and must be "distilled," if you will. The talent of analysis of case law in an English common law system (including the United States) cannot be adequately learned by studying one or ten or even a hundred cases.
I have previously raised the question in Wikipedia regarding how to interpret the "no original research" rule and the problem of how an editor can reliably distill the holdings of court opinions without the specialized expertise of a lawyer. An overly narrow interpretation of the rule against original research in this context could lead, in some cases, to exclusion of important court decisions -- for the simple reason that there simply will not be a "secondary source" (in the Wikipedia sense) interpreting every significant court opinion. The volume of case law is simply too great.
Happily, this problem has been obviated to large degree in the Wikipedia legal articles (where I spend most of my time) by virtue of two simple, fortuitous facts: First, there are a lot of lawyers here in Wikipedia. The quality of some legal articles (like articles in many Wikipedia categories) is weak, but many legal articles are surprisingly well researched and presented.
Second, many non-lawyer Wikipedians do make significant, reliable contributions to legal articles. Yours, Famspear 01:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a very very useful subsection that should definietly be part of existing policies. Please note that there exists a similar page - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples; some form of merger, one way or another, should be considered. Also, per discussion here, I suggest adding a note on reliability of newspapers.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This page has just been deleted and replaced with a redirect. There's no explanation here and I'm not sure if it was deliberate or not (the change was marked as a minor edit).
Even if there are good reasons for deleting the material, incoming links need to be deleted before it is redirected so that we don't end up with meaningless links. I have reverted for now for this reason. Enchanter 22:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Attribution is NOT marked as historical, and it DOES link to this page for further clarification. Therefore this page should not be marked as historical, not until there is a consensus WP:ATT is historical.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 13:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Great structure here. My only suggestion would be that this start with a short section titled something like "What kind of sources are regarded as reliable?" Better perhaps to start with the positive? qp10qp 15:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. "Given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it" is a fact, just like "given a definition which says that plagiarism is a cube, plagiarism has six sides" is a fact. It's a direct logical inference.
The paragraph is inappropriate because we have no reason to *care* that the Chicago Manual of Style's rules lead to a certain conclusion; the Chicago Manual of Style isn't an authority on this particular case, and probably not even on plagiarism in general. In other words, it's a reliable sources issue, not an original research issue.
And I'm aware that this example is from WP:NOR. It's a bad example there too. Ken Arromdee 22:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I may also add that the example refers to a real case, and describes it in a misleading way. See Talk:Alan Dershowitz#The debate with Norman Finkelstein. The difference between the real case and this is that in the real case, the statement that Jones (Dershowitz) didn't commit plagiarism according to the Chicago Manual of Style isn't an original invention of the Wikipedia editor at all. It's sourced to "James O. Freedman, the former president of Dartmouth College, the University of Iowa, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences." We cannot ourselves use the Chicago Manual of Style to analyze whether Dershowitz is a plagiarist, but if we have a reliable source who does that analysis, we can legitimately quote him. Ken Arromdee 01:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the plagiarism example is horribly confusing, and should be replaced. Synthesis is described as combining two statements, A and B, to reach a new conclusion C. As well as being a confusing and complicated case, the example never explains what sources A and B say, or even what sources A and B are (although source B is presumably the CMS). Without this information, the reader is left guessing at what the example is getting at, and I find it unsurprising that so many readers have come to different conclusions about what it is trying to say. In my view it should be replaced by a clear and straightforward example of synthesis. Enchanter 14:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
We need to watch the bloat here, or we'll end up with a page with the problems RS has. We also need to watch that we don't contradict the policy. I found a few sentences that were arguably inconsistent with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Do we need a separate section for each web site that anyone can contribute to? Or could we just lump MySpace, YouTube, Wikis, and so on in a single section. And maybe even combine them with blogs. That seems better to me, as the same problems apply to all:
This means the same exceptions may apply to all of them. JulesH 07:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This section in the proposal currently doesn't seem to answer the question enclosed in the section title. In the single paragraph of that section there are currently some circumstantial explanations that reliable sources can conflict (maybe amounting to something like "don't panic" as part of an answer to the initial question). But no real answer to What do I do...
May I suggest to add something in this vein as a second paragraph to that section:
When each of the differing versions are notable in their own right, are based on reliable published sources, and there is enough difference between the competing versions to be noteworthy, then proceed with what is described in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "(...) all significant published points of view are to be presented (...)", each with their own reference. An example that also the difference between the sources needs to be non-trivial: for instance, if competing official sources give a few percent difference in population numbers for an average city, that is maybe not a "notable" difference - just round the number and put "approx." before it, referring to the available reliable sources.
? -- Francis Schonken 07:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The FAQ refers to A New York Times account of a George Bush speech is a secondary source. This is creating the false impression that all newspaper articles are secondary sources, when actually, a large amount of newspapers accounts are primary sources. Wording needs to be found to make that distinction clearer. The reason I am rasing this, is that some editors are claiming that an article that appears in a small town newspaper (e.g. 'The Post Crescent" From Menosha, Wisconsin) is "a reliable secondary source", because of this FAQ, and claims that that small-town newspaper is more reliable than a book on the subject by a respected author. So, please, let's clarify these issues in the FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Back to the discussion, see what WP:RS had to say about newspapers: More recently, primary sources have been put online, such as the complete run of the London Times, the New York Times and other major newspapers. Some of these are proprietary and must be accessed through libraries; others such as “Making of America”, publishing of 19th century magazines, are open to the public.; See also what our own secondary sources say: An example of a secondary source would be the biographyof a historical figure which constructed a coherent narrative out of avariety of primary source documents, such as letters, diaries,newspaper accounts, and official records.. Clearly the FAQ is misleading editors in asserting that newspaper accounts are secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
(undent) Is a court ruling a primary source (on the ruling) or a secondary source (on the meaning of the law)? One can argue each way: appellate judges are professional scholars interpreting material, but the cases then are further subjected to analysis, especially for a case of first impression.
I wholeheartedly agree with the objective of the primary/secondary distinction. I think it a mistake to try to force a term from historical studies to neatly fit other areas. And, even among professional historians, the term does not have the same quasi-juridical import that it has on Wikipedia. Robert A.West ( Talk) 00:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If "Doesn't Wikipedia care about truth" is really the most frequently asked question about this subject, wouldn't we be doing ourselves a favour to remove the two words "not truth" from the start of Wikipedia:Verifiability? In other words, isn't any confusion about this created by the wording we ourselves have chosen in our most prominent content policy after our copyright policy? jguk 19:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, the problem is that it detracts from what Wikipedia is. If it didn't detract greatly, why is it seen as the most frequently asked question? By all means explain common misperceptions in the policy page - just do this after you have explained what the policy is. I've done enough teaching in my life to know that doing otherwise just confuses people. Greatly. jguk 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Look at the first sentence of the answer to "How do I format citations?"
At a minimum, any substantial, surprising, or controversial claim in an article should be accompanied by an inline citation . . .
I am uncomfortable with the "at minimum" formulation, especially since all articles should contain at least one substantial claim. Footnotes exist to aid the reader in locating the relevant fact, either to verification or for further research. In longer articles with many sources, this is good, but there are many articles for which footnotes would serve no purpose and would even create a distraction.
One can write a perfectly reasonable short biographical article for some members of the british peerage using three sources: the Dictionary of National Biography, Burke's Peerage and The Complete Peerage. In most cases, the entries are a page or two at most, indexed by name, and the sources simply provide a cross-check on one another. One editor even argued that s.n. (Latin, sub nomine, [look] under the name) should suffice in place of a page number. Since most of the information can be found in any of the three sources, I see no purpose in associating a particular datum with a particular source.
In a lot of mathematical articles, the oft-mentioned reason for lack of citation is an embarrassment of riches: look it up in any textbook. My proposal to solve that is a "Further reading" section, such as the Britannica used to have, which would serve both as reference and to direct interested readers. The same advantage does not apply to inline citations: the whole argument appears in any of the sources, possibly in a slightly different form. Furthermore, for GFDL reasons, the examples and diagrams are often original, so not footnotable, which would require reduplicating footnotes before and after the unsourced text. Robert A.West ( Talk) 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
"Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not reliable sources, because the content is self-published, anyone can edit them, and the current version of an article may change at any time."
That seems wrong. If you link to a diff or a particular version, it is not true that anyone can edit the version you're linking to and it's not true that the current version can change at any time.
Which means that the only objection left is that it's self-published.
Self-published sources are acceptable under some limited circumstances, so therefore it's possible for a Wiki to be a reliable source.
How about this?
"Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are self-published, so they may only be used when self-published sources are permitted. If a Wiki is used in such a manner, the source should be a specific dated version of an article, not the current version, since the current version may be edited by anyone and may change at any time." Ken Arromdee 15:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to change
to
Since (1) WP:ATT does not "demand sources" for all assertions and (2) the changed wording emphasizes that we are looking for published sources, not hearsay from experts. CMummert · talk 13:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added what ATT actually now says, and commented out the paragraph that would be a, quite controversial, change in policy. I have an idea on how to reduce this to questions, but at a minimum, this FAQ should represent what ATT proposes. If someone wants to smoth this over, great; if not, I should be back within 24 hours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
NE2, could you say exactly what the sentence you restored (in bold below) means?
MySpace: MySpace is generally not a reliable source because its material is virtually always self-published, and much of it is anonymous or pseudonymous. An exception in which it may be an acceptable primary source is when a reliable source has confirmed who it belongs to.
SlimVirgin (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
For nearly six months, the WP:NOTTRUTH section has read:
This has now been changed to a phrasing that I think is less helpful.
It seems to me that the revised version is oriented more towards a person who already understands NOR and NPOV and less towards the audience of this FAQ. It misses two points that I think are essential, and somewhat conflates WP:ATT with NPOV. First, it omits that the policy acually improves the truth-value of the encyclopedia. If we discuss who believes Foo and who believes Bar, and do so accurately, we are speaking truth. Second, it omits the relation between continual improvement and this policy: as experts change their opinions, Wikipedia expects to keep up.
The discussion about significant minority opinions and letting readers decide for themselves belongs in an NPOV FAQ. We properly exclude a significant amount of attributable material from qualified researchers because the view is obsolete, or is too new to have gained significant support, or has been rejected by the vast majority of researchers. The material passes WP:ATT, but fails other policies. Robert A.West ( Talk) 16:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
There are cases where the reliable source provides false information and the source that provides the correct information doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. In this case, the policy demands that Wikipedia include false information.
The covered bridge example is well known; the sources claim the bridge is closed; the guy who visited it saw that it's not. There's also a recent example where a vandal added a spurious entry saying someone is Iranian, and this is now being reported in reliable sources as a true fact--most likely someone just copied the vandalized information from Wikipedia, but we have no way to prove it. Ken Arromdee 22:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a paradox; not caring about the Truth is our best hope of approaching it. This is a guideline; we can afford, here, to reassure those who fear we are Uncyclopedia, and make up what we like. I think it is the case that the effect of WP:ATT will be to make us as accurate as we can hope to be; why not say this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think DCB4W is arguing over emphasis; he has a different set of concerns than I do. He seems to be chiefly concerned with the pseudo-scientists and their websites; I don't think WP:ATT can, or is intended to, deal with them. WP:NPOV#undue weight and several guidelines exist for them. Perhaps some additions to the section, outlining distinct concerns, are in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What does WP:RS have that this page or WP:ATT doesn't? Hiding Talk 21:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I did discuss it, or tried to. I also pointed out places where people wanted to use Wikipedia as a self-published source under circumstances where our current policy allows self-published sources. The objections to Wikis as sources are that
The second objection just *isn't true*, since Wikipedia allows you to link to a specific dated version, or even to a specific diff, which is less likely to change than most other web-based sources. The first and third objections are easily taken care of: use them only when self-published sources are allowed and only when there's no reasonable doubt about who the author is. It's true that the latter is a judgment call, but WP:RS *itself* says that self-published sources are allowed under certain circumstances "so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material".
It may not have been worded that exact way before, but the paragraph in fact is consistent with policy, and the flat-out statement that they are never, ever, allowed, is not. Ken Arromdee 14:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I started a new subsection. It needs expanding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added material that was originally in RS. But I am concerned that some of that text is outdated or confusing. I have cleaned up the obvious ones, but it needs further attention. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The Parent article was promoted to official policy on Feb 16. What about the FAQ page?? -- Otheus 21:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd support calling it a guideline (rule of thumb that clarifies issues around policy) Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What happened to all the new sections on this page? I can see them when I go back in the history [3], but not here. Please excuse me if I've made a stupid mistake. Sparkzilla 06:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Questions_about_the_reliability_of_specific_sources [4]
Almost everything listed there is a type of source that is nearly always self-published. Do we really need a separate section for each one? Why not combine them into one big section that discusses the problems of self-published sources in general, and lists them as examples?
— Armed Blowfish ( talk| mail) 23:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Having just spent a day arguing with an advocate of a book, much of which is criticized by general consensus, I added a new section addressed to the editor who wants to include the Truth as revealed by their pet crank.
I'm sure we've all had this argument. I tried to summarize my experience with it. I do think it belings here; one reason for guidelines is to have a central home for arguments we've had again and again.
But please tighten and refine; if you want to remove it again, please discuss here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
From time to time an editor declares that we must include the views of a some author who has not received favorable reviews, with the explanation that if the Genius received his due, we would include his views in full. He is only ignored, because he opposes patriarchy, or the liberal/conservative conspiracy (pick one), or the fiendish plots of the Foolanders; and we cannot deny the Genius's accuracy without seeing the full file, which is unpublished.
I want to echo some embedded comments above. It's, well, basically kind of silly to declare that blogs are unreliable. It's like saying "sources printed on A4 paper are unreliable". A web log is simply a medium, and the content conveyed by that medium has to be evaluated on its own merits. Jakob Nielsen's blog is a damned-well reliable source, as he is arguably the most emminent writer in the field of computer-human interface usability (and absolutely in the top five even if you have another favorite.) Notably (no pun intended) he cites sources (often to usability studies performed by his own company, but I don't see anyone, anywhere challenging them, and their methods are sound within the bounds of social science). The blog of Jimmy Smith, high school sophomore in Norman, Oklahoma, is not likely to be reliable for much of anything other than what girls Jimmy thinks are cute. But the same would almost certainly be true of a book somehow published by him, or a Jimmy's World TV show hosted by him. It's not the medium, it's the reliability of the message. The problem with blogs (and wikis) generally is not really a problem with blogs, etc., it's a problem with lack of editorial control, and that problem is something that some blogs, etc., actually escape. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 00:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I am amazed, nay stupified at how people cannot seem to grasp this concept. Thusly, I am going to go over it again. Slowly.
This is the dicdef of synthesis:
the formation of something complex or coherent by combining simpler things
Thus, the word "synthesis" is interchangable with "collection" or "combination". This is not debatable. That's the definition as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
Now let's look at the FAQ text everyone seems so intent on keeping:
Original writing is desirable; it is original ideas or new synthesis of ideas and viewpoints that violate policy.
That might initially seem acceptable, but let's replace "synthesis" with the above words which mean the exact same thing.
Original writing is desirable; it is original ideas or new combinations of ideas and viewpoints that violate policy.
Original writing is desirable; it is original ideas or new collections of ideas and viewpoints that violate policy.
Neither of those are in line with the Wikipedia policy on OR, because they effectively prohibit any article from drawing on multiple "ideas". Don't believe me? Here's an example, taken from a real article:
Research suggests that ADHD arises from a combination of various genes, many of which affect dopamine transporters. [1] Suspect genes include the 10-repeat allele of the DAT1 gene, [2] the 7-repeat allele of the DRD4 gene, [2] and the dopamine beta hydroxylase gene (DBH TaqI). [3]
Seems fine and dandy, right? But wait, look at that second sentence. It clearly uses not one, not two, but three different "ideas", or a collection/combination of ideas, if you will. And since I can't find any other source which used that exact collection/combination of ideas, that makes it a "new" collection/combination of ideas. This means it's original research, and must be removed from the article immediately.
Obviously, the above reasoning is inconsistent with the actual policy, but if someone were to edit an article based on this FAQ that would be the conclusion they would have to come to. Hence, the word "synthesis" should not appear in that sentence.
Now as to Jossi's assertion that "there's a new definition of synthesis according to policy": No. You are wrong. Try again. The word already has a well established definition in the english language. If I decided to re-define the word " pederast" to mean "experienced Wikipedia editor" and then wrote a policy FAQ using that "new definition", exactly how many seconds would it be before the FAQ was deleted and I was banned? (And yes, this is an extreme example, but I'm trying to prove a point here) The word already has a definition that almost all english speakers understand, and trying to re-define it will only confuse people.
I am amazed that this is such a big issue. This is a mind-bogglingly simple concept to grasp: the word you are intent on using has a definition that makes the sentence inconsistent with policy. I realize it's a nice-sounding word (most latin-derived words are) but no amount of shoehorning here will fit it into the FAQ properly. Someone made a bad word choice a while ago and nobody caught it until now. It's a single word; find another one to use. -- Y| yukichigai ( ramble argue check) 10:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not following either. And BTW, my comment was not that "synthesis" has been defined in policy as a term. That is a straw-man argument. What I said is that synthesis has been used in this context in WP policy, and it is a long-standing formulation as it applies to no original research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Your example on ADHD, upon which you base your case, is not original research as it is simply providing information that is well sourced and attributed without attempting to draw a conclusion or assert a synthesis of these viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have raised this before, but this is a good time to raise it again... I often come across articles that imply a synthesis but don't actually state it. ie, where the various parts of the synthesis are laid out in such a way as to strongly lead the reader to a given conclusion, but where the conclusion itself is not actually stated. In our model it would be saying: A + B (= C). When I have raised the issue at RfCs, I am often told it is fine, as long as the article just states the facts without actually reaching a conclusion. The reader can reach their own conclusions. The problem is that given the facts stated (often cherry picked) and the way they are laid out, the reader is led directly to the unstated conclusion the writer wants them to reach. Thoughts? Blueboar 15:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the example of synthesis from Wikipedia:Attribution on the grounds of it being ambiguous and hard to follow. I propose that a more straightforward example is given on this page to illustrate what Wikipedia means by an unpublished synthesis of ideas. One possible example could be:
Lots of alternative examples of what Wikipedia means by unpublished synthesis would also be possible. Any comments on whether the example is appropriate, how it could be improved, or alternative suggestions? Enchanter 22:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Putting the above together, and adding some introductory wording, I propose inserting:
==How do I avoid doing original research?==
Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.
===Example of an unpublished synthesis of published material===
Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its constituent parts have been published by reliable sources. If you have reliable sources for the edits you want to make, be careful that you're not analysing the material in a way that produces a new idea or argument of your own. Just because A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, doesn't mean that A and B can be joined in order to advance position C.
Any suggestions for improvement, objections, or alternative ideas before putting it into the FAQ? Enchanter 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This would address a situation I've run into more than once:
Could surely be made more concise, but that's the gist I'm trying to convey. See the largest thread at Talk:Albinism for a good example of why this is needed.
— SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 22:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to ask for some clarification on anonymous sources.
An anonymous source is an unnamed person or a work created by an unnamed author. Anonymous sources are not acceptable in Wikipedia, because we can't attribute the viewpoint to its author. Anonymous sources whose material is published by reliable secondary sources, such as Deep Throat in The Washington Post, are acceptable, because Wikipedia's source in this case would be the newspaper, not the anonymous source.
In the article National Union of General Workers I have been discussing the inclusion of an anti-union editorial/commentary by what appears to be an anonymous teacher that was published in Metropolis magazine Killing the Golden Goose. The source magazine is a reliable publication, having been published for 13 years or so. There is a long history of editorials in the magazine, though they are usually not anonymous. In this case, I suspect the writer was concerned about reprisals from the union. However, the person highlights some very important points about the Union's activities that I feel should at least be added as claims.
My proposed text is:
There already has been a long, long discussion about this on the Union talk page, that ended in the source being removed as being unreliable. However, the guideline above (in bold) says that anonymous sources can be used when in reliable publications. Should this particular source be included or not? Thank you for your comments. Sparkzilla 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The thread that used to be here was moved to User_talk:Ed Poor, since User:Blueboar argued this was not the right area for it. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, they can do so over at Uncle Ed's talk page. EdJohnston 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm back. Yes, it's about synthesis again. No, I'm not going to stop until the FAQ accurately reflects policy. Now that we have that out of the way....
So, after the little "incident" on the WP:A talk page (which I'm really, really sorry about) I was finally able to get a clear statement on what y'all (or at least SlimVirgin) think "synthesis" means.
Synthesis is a putting together.
So if I can take this one step further, we can swap the terms "synthesis" and "a putting together" from now on. Good, on to step two.
Step two is to examine the sentence I've changed. (repeatedly) Prior to my change it read:
Original writing is desirable; it is original ideas or new synthesis of ideas and viewpoints that violate policy.
So if we do that little word swap I described above (plus some grammar fixing) that sentence means:
Original writing is desirable; it is original ideas or a new putting together of ideas and viewpoints that violate policy.
Read that again. "A new putting together of ideas and viewpoints violates policy?" I think not. It does if that "new putting together" advances a point, but the sentence doesn't say that. It doesn't even say "can violate policy" or "may violate policy," it says that all "new putting together of ideas and viewpoints" violates policy. That is incorrect; hence, the sentence needs to be fixed.
Now, of course, comes the part where someone will inevitably say something like, "synthesis is an important part of policy, it needs to be in the FAQ." I agree, it does. Just not in that sentence. Certainly it should go in that section, and probably should have its own section of the FAQ. The problem is that the "synthesis" part of WP:NOR really cannot be adequately explained in a single sentence, certainly not in a manner that is as simple and easy to understand as is really necessary for a FAQ. After all, a FAQ is supposed to be clear, well-spoken, and so easy to understand that there is virtually no chance for people to come to incorrect conclusions regarding what it says.
Finally, I'd like you to just evaluate the new sentence as it stands after my changes:
Original writing is desirable; it is original ideas and viewpoints that violate policy.
Is that sentence not true? No. Does it in any way distort or confuse the reader about policy? No. In fact, I'd argue that because it is so simple and to the point it is vastly improved; as it stands now it is a short, simple statement that is easy to understand and remember, and goes to the very core of the WP:NOR policy: "original ideas = bad for Wikipedia." Hell, it even covers the "synthesis" issue, because a "synthesis" violation must "advance a point" to be a violation since that "point is" (say it with me now) an original idea. -- Y| yukichigai ( ramble argue check) 21:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The ability to cite references to archived Usenet articles from such services as Google Groups as a historical record of events such as software release announcements is an invaluable resource, and should certainly be an exception to the rule against citing Usenet posts. While it is agreed that a Usenet posting in itself is not an authoritative source of verifiable information, Google Groups can certainly be used as a verification that a particular Usenet article was posted on a particular date, and is quite useful as a historical record. -- Thoric 03:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This FAQ seems to indulge in the fallacy that all wikis are attempts to build encyclopedias. Now, I can think of several reasons why citing such a page would not be a terrific idea, but remember, in general a wiki is just a way to build a web site. Depending on who is allowed to edit and the policies in place, a wiki may have in principle as much reliability as any other web page. (This may, of course, be damning with faint praise.) What about, for example, software documentation which is made available in wiki form? If the documentation derives from the software developers themselves, this seems just as good a source as any other company website. As long as the citation links to the specific version of the page, what would be wrong with this?
Just an idea for consideration. Anville 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This FAQ currently states, "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources. Many of them license content under the GFDL, which might be worth importing into Wikipedia, but once imported, the material is subject to Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."
I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia should not be allowed to be used as source or reference for some fact. This will result in circular reasoning ("We should write X in Wikipedia because Wikipedia writes X here"). This type of logic is fallacious and only begs the question. (This also reiterated in [[[WP:OR]], where it states only primary and secondary sources should be used to cite statements, and tertiary sources, such as Wikipedia, are to be avoided.) However, we currently policy that states Wikipedia article can, in fact, be used as sources, per WP:SUMMARY. The policy states we can summarize the article, without giving references, so as to ensure article do not overly long. Of course, very long articles are burdensome for readers, and summaries of the main points are necessary to condense the general ideas. However, simply using a different Wikipedia article seems to violate the WP:OR policy and the one stated in this FAQ. Thoughts? ~ UBeR 03:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sanjiv swarup 07:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Are wikis reliable sources? Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources. Many of them license content under the GFDL, which might be worth importing into Wikipedia, but once imported, the material is subject to Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
My take is that the above statement on the article may have been correct three years ago.
IMHO, wikipedia IS a reliable source today.
Wikipedia has matured enough to be considered a reliable source.
The millions of users everyday definitely think so too.
Comments requested.
I tried to change this. It got reverted.
My own concern was with using statements by people on talk pages, etc., which should count as self-published sources usable in articles about the author. What discussion there is is still on this page under Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/FAQ#.22Are_Wikis_reliable_sources.3F.22 and Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/FAQ#Wikis as reliable sources
I find the objections to this to be specious. Some of them amounted to "it's difficult to do this". Fine, only allow it when someone has done it despite the difficulty. The biggest objection, that a Wiki can change at any time, is answered by using a permalink. Ken Arromdee 15:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This page (and the new Attribution page) have not included the following section of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. Why? Shouldn't it? Tazmaniacs 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I have problems with WP:ATT in general, this FAQ is a useful policy, I particulary like the extensive 'what is reliable' and 'what is not' section. Good job, and this should become a policy.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 06:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Where should i post questions about the Attribution policy (proposal)? Itayb 08:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see my post there about using parts of this policy to update WP:RS.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Radiant tagged this as Historical... but I don't think it is. As this is a sub-page of WP:ATT... which has been tagged as "Proposed"... I would think this page should be tagged the same way? Blueboar 15:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The second paragraph here in the FAQ says that: historical documents (of) ... trials are an example of a primary source. But, typically, when a court documents its' opinion, the court includes discussion of their reasoning which typically involves the court citing prior history and prior court precedence, which on its face seems it may be secondary. Under the guidelines of WP:ATT, when courts issue written opinions of court cases, should those documents be given weight as a primary source (as the FAQ seems to say) or given weight as a secondary source? SaltyBoatr 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear editors: Editor SaltyBoatr has raised some interesting points, hitting in part at something I have previously discussed in Wikipedia.
First, we can distinguish between a primary source as that term is used in Wikipedia, and Primary authority as that term is used by legal scholars (at least in the United States). A print or reprint of the actual, verbatim text of a court opinion is primary authority in the legal sense, as is the actual verbatim text of a statute, an administrative regulation, a treaty, etc. In the Wikipedia sense of a primary source, a court opinion would be a "primary source" on the issue of what the court said (whereas a law professor's treatise discussing the court opinion would be a secondary source). Similarly, in the legal sense, the professor's treatise would be Secondary authority.
At least two other points should be made: First, if for some reason you are looking to the court opinion for a pronouncement on non-legal matters such as history, then I guess you might argue that the court opinion is a secondary source -- in the Wikipedia sense -- for that limited purpose.
Second, getting back to the point about Primary authority (in the legal sense), court opinions are different from statutes, regulations, and so on. Only a small part of the actual text of a court opinion is what we call the holding (or holdings) of the case, the Precedent or "ruling" (if you will) for which that case stands. See also Stare decisis. Most of the actual verbatim text of a court opinion consists of recitation of the facts, a description of the procedural history, statement of the issues, and statements about the law which, although generally "correct," constitute non-binding material that legal scholars refer to as obiter dicta, or just "dicta." Parsing a case to separate the holding or holdings from the non-binding dicta is indeed difficult for non-lawyers. In some texts the holding or holdings is not clearly stated and must be "distilled," if you will. The talent of analysis of case law in an English common law system (including the United States) cannot be adequately learned by studying one or ten or even a hundred cases.
I have previously raised the question in Wikipedia regarding how to interpret the "no original research" rule and the problem of how an editor can reliably distill the holdings of court opinions without the specialized expertise of a lawyer. An overly narrow interpretation of the rule against original research in this context could lead, in some cases, to exclusion of important court decisions -- for the simple reason that there simply will not be a "secondary source" (in the Wikipedia sense) interpreting every significant court opinion. The volume of case law is simply too great.
Happily, this problem has been obviated to large degree in the Wikipedia legal articles (where I spend most of my time) by virtue of two simple, fortuitous facts: First, there are a lot of lawyers here in Wikipedia. The quality of some legal articles (like articles in many Wikipedia categories) is weak, but many legal articles are surprisingly well researched and presented.
Second, many non-lawyer Wikipedians do make significant, reliable contributions to legal articles. Yours, Famspear 01:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a very very useful subsection that should definietly be part of existing policies. Please note that there exists a similar page - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples; some form of merger, one way or another, should be considered. Also, per discussion here, I suggest adding a note on reliability of newspapers.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This page has just been deleted and replaced with a redirect. There's no explanation here and I'm not sure if it was deliberate or not (the change was marked as a minor edit).
Even if there are good reasons for deleting the material, incoming links need to be deleted before it is redirected so that we don't end up with meaningless links. I have reverted for now for this reason. Enchanter 22:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Attribution is NOT marked as historical, and it DOES link to this page for further clarification. Therefore this page should not be marked as historical, not until there is a consensus WP:ATT is historical.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 13:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)