![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This article even is not neutral. I guess that most of the other pages are though. Maby we should present another point of view here so that we dont break own rules of neutrality on our rule page of neutrality. (I'm just joking)
It would be nice to have a template {{original research}}, similar to {{disputed}} and {{NPOV}}, that could be used to mark articles that include material that is arguably original research and needs to be fixed (but which may be subject to dispute and can't be deleted out of hand without igniting an edit war). Currently, none of the dispute tags really fits this problem, which is rampant. —Steven G. Johnson 18:27, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
I have tried to find an answer to this, but can't: in compiling a bibliography, are the originals the primary source, or is the bibliography original research? Is there another category, "observation" perhaps?
For example, suppose I looked at J. G. Ballard and saw a reference to "The Wind That Came From Nowhere". I look on my shelf and see "The Wind From Nowhere". So I correct it. Or, is it only valid if I find a bibliography that someone else has prepared and use that? It is further complicated because several web bibliographies do list this (presumably) erroneous title, perhaps from a single bad source.
The same argument applies to, for example discographies, episode guides, etc. Can I produce a track listing by picking up a CD, or do I have to find someone else who did it?
Off topic, but perhaps someone can point me to where it is ON topic: what are the limits on bibliographies? Should they be complete e.g. is there any barrier to moving on from J.G. Ballard's books to a complete list of his short work, and each collection it appears in? A complete list of the contents of each issue of Astounding Science Fiction? Is the level of detail found in http://www.snpp.com/episodes.html and each page directly linked from its episode guide too much for Wikipedia? etc. Notinasnaid 10:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is really very good. Two queries:
(1)"Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It usually does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere, though it might in some circumstances."
I added "usually" and "though it might in some circumstances," though arguably that makes the second sentence contradict the first, so it's not ideal. The reason I added it is that the arbcom, in their August/Sept decision, ruled that the LaRouche editors were engaged in original research when they quoted from LaRouche's original research. The way our sentence above stood originally, they would have been allowed to do that because the research was not theirs, though they would have fallen at the reputable-publication hurdle. Do we want to rely exclusively on that second hurdle to stop editing like that, or do we also want to be able to use the term "original research" to describe Wikipedia editors lifting badly done original research from outside sources?
(2) "For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in a Socialist Workers' Party magazine to publish a statement about President Bush being gay. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to it (and probably also to its claimed sources). The political magazine could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself."
I'm not sure what's meant by "and probably also to its claimed source" in the second sentence. Do we mean if the New York Times published a story that Bush was gay, and had obtained that story from the Socialist Workers' Party magazine, we could then refer to the SWP? We could, but I wonder if that's worth pointing out, because we can refer to anything that's in the New York Times. But perhaps I've misunderstood. SlimVirgin 02:46, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
For the record if nothing else, I'll repeat (but for the first time on this page) my disagreement with the following: "The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"."
It's too broad, in my view. I know SlimVirgin disagrees. I don't want to make a big deal out of this particular point.
But I do think that these changes are major. And whether I agree with them or not, I think they should be brought to the attention of the wider community. Maurreen 04:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the problem with how it's worded now is that what's not wanted are not new theories as such, but just new theories invented by Wikipedians! And you already covered that in the previous par. It's slightly misleading as it stands. I definitely think you could tweak it to ensure that there's a clear understanding that Jimbo didn't want to see a novel narrative on our part not a novel narrative per se! If some prof prints the quantum theory of elephants next week, we want to cover it, no? Dr Zen 07:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, reading further, I think you should tone down the whole approach to theories. You could arguably ban any deep discussion of intelligent design because it has not been peer reviewed. This is rather contradicted later when you say that theories with few adherents can be included!
Of course, this is one of those concepts where the thrust is very clear, and we mostly know it when we see it, but putting it into precise, legalistic terms is a lot more difficult. Dr Zen 07:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I can see the reference to the apple pie article was introduced after a lot of discussion but, to someone looking at this page for the first time, the reference does look rather bizarre! I expect it is an echo of the great apple pie controversy. Anyway, is it true that the apple pie article is based entirely on primary sources? For example, it tells us what the Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings has to say on the subject. Even if the primary source claim is right, to me it really doesn't shed any light on the matter. Thincat 16:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I do not see the words "appropriate to the subject" anywhere in the drafts or any discourse. Without this overarching guide, these rules about "original research" are a recipe for needless interference and groundless petty tyrannies. Not all Wikipedia entries need to be footnoted to a single standard.
Examples: Woody Woodpecker is a sensible report, currently without any documentation, apparently based on a good deal of perceptive understanding that would pass as "original research" if one were inclined to fault it. The original research embodied in Necktie#Ties as signs of membership is a contribution that should not be disallowed on petty grounds.
In the studies of mythology and art history, many sensible mainstream remarks are not susceptible to "proof." Look at Baroque and Rococo for examples. Aspects of Rococo that are pointed out in Francois Boucher's painting are either useful to the reader, or they are pretentious and confusing. The image is the equivalent of a cited source. Under rules that offer no flexibility,and which may not be "appropriate to the subject," many articles might be reduced to a mere tissue of cited quotations.
Take a tip from the way the expression "NPOV" has so consistently been reduced to a club to justify users' own POV, and retain some explicit flexibility in this area.
Two excellent rules for us self-important Wikipedians: Avoid unnecessary interference and Keep the reader firmly in mind. -- Wetman 05:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have no objection to adding something on "appropriateness" but the very first paragraph states that research might be excluded if it is not appropriate, so doesn't that make it implicitly clear that research must be "appropriate?" Also, I don't see how Wetman's objections have anything to do with appropriateness. If I understand Wetman's concerns -- well, I think the policy as written does address them explicitly:
Doesn't this make it clear that not all articles need to follow this policy strictly? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think most editors understand that all policies must be applied flexibly ( see the introduction to policies and guidelines). I just do not understand what Wetman is objecting to or asking for. He writes:
And yes, I know that this happens a lot and sometimes an editor might find it irritating. But so what? I firmly believe that this is a good thing in most cases -- an ignorant editor poses what I myself think is a stupid question -- but it makes me realize that many readers will probably ask the same question, and so it needs to be addressed, by adding more information about the sources. The end result is, the article is improved. This is what our process is all about. And in the case of trolls, whose demands and challenges about the sources soon reveal themselves to be based not on a good-faith desire to improve the article, but rather a POV warrior or simply someone who wants to throw a wrench into our process, well, this is easy too: ignore this persons challenges, revert his or her changes, and if they continue seek redress from the community. My point is, in neither case do I see anything that warrents a change to this policy. Wetman also states:
Now, Wetman, you put this in quotation marks as if you are quoting this policy. But where on earth does it actually say this? Nowhere! The policy simply does not say this. So how do we respond when you insist that any sentence for which no reference can be found may be removed by any editor? We tell you this: please read the policy. Your interpretation of the policy is wrong. And Wetman, if you delete a sentence just because that sentence has no reference -- without following the policy and making sure all the conditions that call for a citation apply -- well, we will revert your change. If I am working on an article and someone deletes a sentence just because there is no citation, I will revert that editor. We have policies for a reason, they provide a common point of reference for all editors. You ae not allowed to create your own policy, "any sentence for which no reference can be found may be removed by any editor." That isn't what our policies call for, and you can't get away with it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Wetman, please, please do not invent misleading quotes that misrepresent our policy, it can only confuse newbies. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, sure Slim, but you yourself were not quoting policy, and Wetman shouldn't have taken it that way. Moreover, you made it very clear that ediotrs need to use common sense and that this approach should be reserved for highly controversial claim More than that, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite.s -- two conditions that Wetman now seems to think s/he is proposing. It's just my impression that Wetman is not reading anything carefully. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
At Talk:Capitalism today, the following notice appeared:
We are going to be seeing a rash of text removed from Wikipedia as undocumented "original research" or "unverifiable" in the near future. Let us remember that "first citations" of English usage are reported in OED. Genuine concern might be better expressed by providing the OED citation, or simply asking for it. Removing text in this fashion is officious: it benefits neither Wikipedia nor the reader—a person not often considered in discussions on this page. Let us be sure that our censorship is not based on our ignorance.-- Wetman 23:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My point, perfectly clearly made, is that genuine concern might have been better expressed by providing the OED citation, rather than by officiously removing the offending sentence. As SlimVirgin stated previously, "any sentence for which no reference can be found may be removed by any editor." It may not be policy, yet, but it is an increasing practice among some Wikipedians, as my example demonstrates. Common sense is as rare as good manners. -- Wetman 04:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wetman, I really don't think good editors like yourself have anything to worry about regarding this policy. No one wants to turn articles into lists of citations or quotations, or keep interesting edits out of articles. One of the advantages of Wikipedia is that it can be a little bit quirky, which is what makes it interesting. It's a question of ensuring accuracy and verifiability too, and I believe we can have them all. SlimVirgin 03:58, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
The existing No original research guidelines are fairly clear that original attempts to refute a given position in an article are "original research", yet I don't see that as clearly here. In my experience one of the more significant problems of original research are editors who see a position in an article they don't like, and therefore come up with an argument to refute it. I think we need to make it clear that refutations must also come from published sources, and not just arguments people think up on their own. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree completely with Mustafaa — published arguments are sufficient, all my articles are written in this way, and I am confident they meet scholarly standards. But as for his mistaken impression of Yehuda Bauer (a product of the incomplete and out of context quote above), see my correction at Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict#Revisited. El_C 11:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I disagree; it would not be original research to point out that Bush visiting Mars is physically impossible, and more to the point it would be crippling to Wikipedia to impose a taboo on saying such a thing. I think we may need more people's views on this... I note that you still haven't given a link to wherever this discussion took place (mailing list, perhaps?) (But since you ask, the immediate example is that of course one can be against the existence of Malaysia without being anti-Malay. One can think that it should be broken up (say, into its separate emirates), that it should be incorporated into a larger state ("Pan-Malayo-Polynesia", maybe?), or even that it should be incorporated into China or Thailand without having anything against the Malay population. It's honestly harder to imagine why he would think this than why it's wrong.) - Mustafaa 23:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Judging by this, it looks to me like this particular part of the policy has scarcely been discussed at all, let alone a consensus established. There's a post introducing it (Eclecticology, 3 Dec.) followed soon after by a post arguing against it (Wetman 6 Dec.) and much later by Jayjg's post arguing for it. I'm inclined to suggest that this should be removed pending further discussion. - Mustafaa 00:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't see it on the mailing list - do you mean Wikipedia or Wiki-EN? - Mustafaa 01:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mustafaa, I don't know where you get the idea that NPOV requires citation when accuracy is challenged, but NPOV does not require citation when OR is alleged. Any edit that is challenged, on any ground whatsoever, requires a credible citation. If no credible citation can be found, there's probably something wrong with the edit: that is, it's false, and/or original research, and/or a tiny-minority position that should not be mentioned. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:47, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
I think in general assumptions about users knowledge should be avoided, and that this is supported by Wikipedia:Explain jargon. Many articles already contain basic information supported by one unobtrusive citation at the end of the paragraph. Many contributors feel Wikipedia's reputation rest on citation, and hope for a day when all facts are supported by multiple references. Hyacinth 08:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to Jayjg for bringing this new discussion to my attention. The whole point of the purported refutation clause had to do with introducing arguments that don't need to be made. Thus if Bauer claims that a united Malaysia is anti-Malay, or if the National Enquirer claims that George W. Bush was abducted by Martians during an airforce training flight, or if Baron Munchausen claims that he saw Orang-Utans in Greenland these are all merely claimns that do not require refutation. The only point that can be challenged is whether the sources if fact made those claims. National Enquirer has been published for many years, and it is not up to the person challenging the claim to go through every issue of the publication to not find something that is not there. It would be the duty of the person introducing the statement to specify the page in a particular issue where the claim is made.
Any attempt to disprove these things only appears or "purports" to disprove them. More often, it is only excess verbiage that further confuses the issue. One needs to distinguish between "Baron Munchausen claims that he saw Orang-Utans in Greenland," and "There are Orang-Utans in Greenland." Only the latter needs to be addressed on a substantive level. The kind of argument under discussion is common in areas relating to what some call "pseudoscience", where a great deal of zeal is applied by opponents refuting claims that were never made. If a seer claims to have communicated with your grandmother's spirit you have no way to prove or disprove that claim by the application of logic. Attempting to do either is futile. Eclecticology 19:20, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
Scientific articles on Wikipedia benefit from being able to show the actual data. So for a while now, I have been donating figures to Wikipedia that replot scientific data from published sources. See: User:Dragons flight/Images.
However, data selection and presentation is something of an art, and data by itself can call for conclusions. In making this post, I am looking for some community feedback regarding how the policy of no original research relates the preparation of scientific figures.
I am assuming that merely replotting and compositing someone else's data (e.g. Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png) would never qualify as original research, however there are a number of cases that are more ambiguous than that.
In order to offer the best possible presentation, I have sometimes been creating comparisons among data that may not exist in quite the same form in the research literature (e.g. Image:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png) In some cases, I have been scaling or smoothing the data to make comparisons possible. I believe that all of these manipulations are reasonable and follow well established principles, however, if I am the first one to smooth the data in a particular way or make a particular comparison, then one might argue that it is original research.
Of potentially greater concern is the presentation of scientific data when the data itself calls for a conclusion (e.g. Image:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr.png). I've been fairly careful to not draw any conclusions from any of the plots I have made that can't be supported by other published research (though in some cases better documentation of supporting material is probably appropriate), but would it be a problem in Wikipedia, to say that X data supports the conclusions of Y even if neither X or Y actually chose to point out the connection?
Of the plots I have prepared probably the most problematic (on several levels) is Image:Holocene Temperature Variations.png. First I am combining data in a way that is strightforward, but has never been done before for this particular set of data, and then I am saying that the average thereof supports the conclusions others have made about temperature changes during the Holocene. Even if you agree that it is okay to say that X data supports the conclusions of Y, I can understand someone who might still have a problem with allowing that the average of X1, X2, X3, etc supports the conclusions of Y is an appropriate statement.
Since I am asking for community feedback, there is a related, but somewhat off topic issue on which I would also appreciate feedback. All of the images I have produced are used in articles on Wikipedia, but I have also chosen to use the Image description pages themselves to not only document the data used and describe the construction of the figure, but also to provide some summary of what it means. One user has objected to me, perhaps paradoxically, that the image description page should not be used for extended description and interpretation. In essence saying that those details should only be given in the main namespace. Personally, I feel that since the Image namespace is dedicated to the images that this is the appropriate place for any extended description or explanation of images that might be useful.
Thanks in advance for any guidance.
Dragons flight 21:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
"If you have a great idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to publish your results in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner." I'm not sure...this doesn't offend. -- VKokielov 07:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The policy says that references to openly partisan sources should be avoided. Unfortunately there are many institutions, particularly Washington think tanks that provide research to order just as there are companies that will perform 'astroturf' (fake grass roots) campaigns for a fee.
I think that it is important that partisan sources be treated as partisan even if they are pretending to be neutral. If an institute has received a donation of $100,000 from Exon it should not be cited as an impartial authority on global warming. If it does not cite its sources of funding at all it should not be considered impartial.
The same can also be said of industry analysts. In the computing industry it is well known that if you want a favorable report from certain 'analysts' the we that you assure that is to either commission the report directly, or if the group does not do that type of research you pay for 'consultancy' or a 'presentation', the going rate being $30,000 to $50,000 for a day of this 'work' or less.
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This article even is not neutral. I guess that most of the other pages are though. Maby we should present another point of view here so that we dont break own rules of neutrality on our rule page of neutrality. (I'm just joking)
It would be nice to have a template {{original research}}, similar to {{disputed}} and {{NPOV}}, that could be used to mark articles that include material that is arguably original research and needs to be fixed (but which may be subject to dispute and can't be deleted out of hand without igniting an edit war). Currently, none of the dispute tags really fits this problem, which is rampant. —Steven G. Johnson 18:27, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
I have tried to find an answer to this, but can't: in compiling a bibliography, are the originals the primary source, or is the bibliography original research? Is there another category, "observation" perhaps?
For example, suppose I looked at J. G. Ballard and saw a reference to "The Wind That Came From Nowhere". I look on my shelf and see "The Wind From Nowhere". So I correct it. Or, is it only valid if I find a bibliography that someone else has prepared and use that? It is further complicated because several web bibliographies do list this (presumably) erroneous title, perhaps from a single bad source.
The same argument applies to, for example discographies, episode guides, etc. Can I produce a track listing by picking up a CD, or do I have to find someone else who did it?
Off topic, but perhaps someone can point me to where it is ON topic: what are the limits on bibliographies? Should they be complete e.g. is there any barrier to moving on from J.G. Ballard's books to a complete list of his short work, and each collection it appears in? A complete list of the contents of each issue of Astounding Science Fiction? Is the level of detail found in http://www.snpp.com/episodes.html and each page directly linked from its episode guide too much for Wikipedia? etc. Notinasnaid 10:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is really very good. Two queries:
(1)"Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It usually does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere, though it might in some circumstances."
I added "usually" and "though it might in some circumstances," though arguably that makes the second sentence contradict the first, so it's not ideal. The reason I added it is that the arbcom, in their August/Sept decision, ruled that the LaRouche editors were engaged in original research when they quoted from LaRouche's original research. The way our sentence above stood originally, they would have been allowed to do that because the research was not theirs, though they would have fallen at the reputable-publication hurdle. Do we want to rely exclusively on that second hurdle to stop editing like that, or do we also want to be able to use the term "original research" to describe Wikipedia editors lifting badly done original research from outside sources?
(2) "For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in a Socialist Workers' Party magazine to publish a statement about President Bush being gay. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to it (and probably also to its claimed sources). The political magazine could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself."
I'm not sure what's meant by "and probably also to its claimed source" in the second sentence. Do we mean if the New York Times published a story that Bush was gay, and had obtained that story from the Socialist Workers' Party magazine, we could then refer to the SWP? We could, but I wonder if that's worth pointing out, because we can refer to anything that's in the New York Times. But perhaps I've misunderstood. SlimVirgin 02:46, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
For the record if nothing else, I'll repeat (but for the first time on this page) my disagreement with the following: "The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"."
It's too broad, in my view. I know SlimVirgin disagrees. I don't want to make a big deal out of this particular point.
But I do think that these changes are major. And whether I agree with them or not, I think they should be brought to the attention of the wider community. Maurreen 04:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the problem with how it's worded now is that what's not wanted are not new theories as such, but just new theories invented by Wikipedians! And you already covered that in the previous par. It's slightly misleading as it stands. I definitely think you could tweak it to ensure that there's a clear understanding that Jimbo didn't want to see a novel narrative on our part not a novel narrative per se! If some prof prints the quantum theory of elephants next week, we want to cover it, no? Dr Zen 07:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, reading further, I think you should tone down the whole approach to theories. You could arguably ban any deep discussion of intelligent design because it has not been peer reviewed. This is rather contradicted later when you say that theories with few adherents can be included!
Of course, this is one of those concepts where the thrust is very clear, and we mostly know it when we see it, but putting it into precise, legalistic terms is a lot more difficult. Dr Zen 07:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I can see the reference to the apple pie article was introduced after a lot of discussion but, to someone looking at this page for the first time, the reference does look rather bizarre! I expect it is an echo of the great apple pie controversy. Anyway, is it true that the apple pie article is based entirely on primary sources? For example, it tells us what the Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings has to say on the subject. Even if the primary source claim is right, to me it really doesn't shed any light on the matter. Thincat 16:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I do not see the words "appropriate to the subject" anywhere in the drafts or any discourse. Without this overarching guide, these rules about "original research" are a recipe for needless interference and groundless petty tyrannies. Not all Wikipedia entries need to be footnoted to a single standard.
Examples: Woody Woodpecker is a sensible report, currently without any documentation, apparently based on a good deal of perceptive understanding that would pass as "original research" if one were inclined to fault it. The original research embodied in Necktie#Ties as signs of membership is a contribution that should not be disallowed on petty grounds.
In the studies of mythology and art history, many sensible mainstream remarks are not susceptible to "proof." Look at Baroque and Rococo for examples. Aspects of Rococo that are pointed out in Francois Boucher's painting are either useful to the reader, or they are pretentious and confusing. The image is the equivalent of a cited source. Under rules that offer no flexibility,and which may not be "appropriate to the subject," many articles might be reduced to a mere tissue of cited quotations.
Take a tip from the way the expression "NPOV" has so consistently been reduced to a club to justify users' own POV, and retain some explicit flexibility in this area.
Two excellent rules for us self-important Wikipedians: Avoid unnecessary interference and Keep the reader firmly in mind. -- Wetman 05:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have no objection to adding something on "appropriateness" but the very first paragraph states that research might be excluded if it is not appropriate, so doesn't that make it implicitly clear that research must be "appropriate?" Also, I don't see how Wetman's objections have anything to do with appropriateness. If I understand Wetman's concerns -- well, I think the policy as written does address them explicitly:
Doesn't this make it clear that not all articles need to follow this policy strictly? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think most editors understand that all policies must be applied flexibly ( see the introduction to policies and guidelines). I just do not understand what Wetman is objecting to or asking for. He writes:
And yes, I know that this happens a lot and sometimes an editor might find it irritating. But so what? I firmly believe that this is a good thing in most cases -- an ignorant editor poses what I myself think is a stupid question -- but it makes me realize that many readers will probably ask the same question, and so it needs to be addressed, by adding more information about the sources. The end result is, the article is improved. This is what our process is all about. And in the case of trolls, whose demands and challenges about the sources soon reveal themselves to be based not on a good-faith desire to improve the article, but rather a POV warrior or simply someone who wants to throw a wrench into our process, well, this is easy too: ignore this persons challenges, revert his or her changes, and if they continue seek redress from the community. My point is, in neither case do I see anything that warrents a change to this policy. Wetman also states:
Now, Wetman, you put this in quotation marks as if you are quoting this policy. But where on earth does it actually say this? Nowhere! The policy simply does not say this. So how do we respond when you insist that any sentence for which no reference can be found may be removed by any editor? We tell you this: please read the policy. Your interpretation of the policy is wrong. And Wetman, if you delete a sentence just because that sentence has no reference -- without following the policy and making sure all the conditions that call for a citation apply -- well, we will revert your change. If I am working on an article and someone deletes a sentence just because there is no citation, I will revert that editor. We have policies for a reason, they provide a common point of reference for all editors. You ae not allowed to create your own policy, "any sentence for which no reference can be found may be removed by any editor." That isn't what our policies call for, and you can't get away with it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Wetman, please, please do not invent misleading quotes that misrepresent our policy, it can only confuse newbies. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, sure Slim, but you yourself were not quoting policy, and Wetman shouldn't have taken it that way. Moreover, you made it very clear that ediotrs need to use common sense and that this approach should be reserved for highly controversial claim More than that, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite.s -- two conditions that Wetman now seems to think s/he is proposing. It's just my impression that Wetman is not reading anything carefully. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
At Talk:Capitalism today, the following notice appeared:
We are going to be seeing a rash of text removed from Wikipedia as undocumented "original research" or "unverifiable" in the near future. Let us remember that "first citations" of English usage are reported in OED. Genuine concern might be better expressed by providing the OED citation, or simply asking for it. Removing text in this fashion is officious: it benefits neither Wikipedia nor the reader—a person not often considered in discussions on this page. Let us be sure that our censorship is not based on our ignorance.-- Wetman 23:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My point, perfectly clearly made, is that genuine concern might have been better expressed by providing the OED citation, rather than by officiously removing the offending sentence. As SlimVirgin stated previously, "any sentence for which no reference can be found may be removed by any editor." It may not be policy, yet, but it is an increasing practice among some Wikipedians, as my example demonstrates. Common sense is as rare as good manners. -- Wetman 04:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wetman, I really don't think good editors like yourself have anything to worry about regarding this policy. No one wants to turn articles into lists of citations or quotations, or keep interesting edits out of articles. One of the advantages of Wikipedia is that it can be a little bit quirky, which is what makes it interesting. It's a question of ensuring accuracy and verifiability too, and I believe we can have them all. SlimVirgin 03:58, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
The existing No original research guidelines are fairly clear that original attempts to refute a given position in an article are "original research", yet I don't see that as clearly here. In my experience one of the more significant problems of original research are editors who see a position in an article they don't like, and therefore come up with an argument to refute it. I think we need to make it clear that refutations must also come from published sources, and not just arguments people think up on their own. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree completely with Mustafaa — published arguments are sufficient, all my articles are written in this way, and I am confident they meet scholarly standards. But as for his mistaken impression of Yehuda Bauer (a product of the incomplete and out of context quote above), see my correction at Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict#Revisited. El_C 11:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I disagree; it would not be original research to point out that Bush visiting Mars is physically impossible, and more to the point it would be crippling to Wikipedia to impose a taboo on saying such a thing. I think we may need more people's views on this... I note that you still haven't given a link to wherever this discussion took place (mailing list, perhaps?) (But since you ask, the immediate example is that of course one can be against the existence of Malaysia without being anti-Malay. One can think that it should be broken up (say, into its separate emirates), that it should be incorporated into a larger state ("Pan-Malayo-Polynesia", maybe?), or even that it should be incorporated into China or Thailand without having anything against the Malay population. It's honestly harder to imagine why he would think this than why it's wrong.) - Mustafaa 23:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Judging by this, it looks to me like this particular part of the policy has scarcely been discussed at all, let alone a consensus established. There's a post introducing it (Eclecticology, 3 Dec.) followed soon after by a post arguing against it (Wetman 6 Dec.) and much later by Jayjg's post arguing for it. I'm inclined to suggest that this should be removed pending further discussion. - Mustafaa 00:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't see it on the mailing list - do you mean Wikipedia or Wiki-EN? - Mustafaa 01:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mustafaa, I don't know where you get the idea that NPOV requires citation when accuracy is challenged, but NPOV does not require citation when OR is alleged. Any edit that is challenged, on any ground whatsoever, requires a credible citation. If no credible citation can be found, there's probably something wrong with the edit: that is, it's false, and/or original research, and/or a tiny-minority position that should not be mentioned. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:47, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
I think in general assumptions about users knowledge should be avoided, and that this is supported by Wikipedia:Explain jargon. Many articles already contain basic information supported by one unobtrusive citation at the end of the paragraph. Many contributors feel Wikipedia's reputation rest on citation, and hope for a day when all facts are supported by multiple references. Hyacinth 08:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to Jayjg for bringing this new discussion to my attention. The whole point of the purported refutation clause had to do with introducing arguments that don't need to be made. Thus if Bauer claims that a united Malaysia is anti-Malay, or if the National Enquirer claims that George W. Bush was abducted by Martians during an airforce training flight, or if Baron Munchausen claims that he saw Orang-Utans in Greenland these are all merely claimns that do not require refutation. The only point that can be challenged is whether the sources if fact made those claims. National Enquirer has been published for many years, and it is not up to the person challenging the claim to go through every issue of the publication to not find something that is not there. It would be the duty of the person introducing the statement to specify the page in a particular issue where the claim is made.
Any attempt to disprove these things only appears or "purports" to disprove them. More often, it is only excess verbiage that further confuses the issue. One needs to distinguish between "Baron Munchausen claims that he saw Orang-Utans in Greenland," and "There are Orang-Utans in Greenland." Only the latter needs to be addressed on a substantive level. The kind of argument under discussion is common in areas relating to what some call "pseudoscience", where a great deal of zeal is applied by opponents refuting claims that were never made. If a seer claims to have communicated with your grandmother's spirit you have no way to prove or disprove that claim by the application of logic. Attempting to do either is futile. Eclecticology 19:20, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
Scientific articles on Wikipedia benefit from being able to show the actual data. So for a while now, I have been donating figures to Wikipedia that replot scientific data from published sources. See: User:Dragons flight/Images.
However, data selection and presentation is something of an art, and data by itself can call for conclusions. In making this post, I am looking for some community feedback regarding how the policy of no original research relates the preparation of scientific figures.
I am assuming that merely replotting and compositing someone else's data (e.g. Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png) would never qualify as original research, however there are a number of cases that are more ambiguous than that.
In order to offer the best possible presentation, I have sometimes been creating comparisons among data that may not exist in quite the same form in the research literature (e.g. Image:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png) In some cases, I have been scaling or smoothing the data to make comparisons possible. I believe that all of these manipulations are reasonable and follow well established principles, however, if I am the first one to smooth the data in a particular way or make a particular comparison, then one might argue that it is original research.
Of potentially greater concern is the presentation of scientific data when the data itself calls for a conclusion (e.g. Image:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr.png). I've been fairly careful to not draw any conclusions from any of the plots I have made that can't be supported by other published research (though in some cases better documentation of supporting material is probably appropriate), but would it be a problem in Wikipedia, to say that X data supports the conclusions of Y even if neither X or Y actually chose to point out the connection?
Of the plots I have prepared probably the most problematic (on several levels) is Image:Holocene Temperature Variations.png. First I am combining data in a way that is strightforward, but has never been done before for this particular set of data, and then I am saying that the average thereof supports the conclusions others have made about temperature changes during the Holocene. Even if you agree that it is okay to say that X data supports the conclusions of Y, I can understand someone who might still have a problem with allowing that the average of X1, X2, X3, etc supports the conclusions of Y is an appropriate statement.
Since I am asking for community feedback, there is a related, but somewhat off topic issue on which I would also appreciate feedback. All of the images I have produced are used in articles on Wikipedia, but I have also chosen to use the Image description pages themselves to not only document the data used and describe the construction of the figure, but also to provide some summary of what it means. One user has objected to me, perhaps paradoxically, that the image description page should not be used for extended description and interpretation. In essence saying that those details should only be given in the main namespace. Personally, I feel that since the Image namespace is dedicated to the images that this is the appropriate place for any extended description or explanation of images that might be useful.
Thanks in advance for any guidance.
Dragons flight 21:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
"If you have a great idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to publish your results in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner." I'm not sure...this doesn't offend. -- VKokielov 07:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The policy says that references to openly partisan sources should be avoided. Unfortunately there are many institutions, particularly Washington think tanks that provide research to order just as there are companies that will perform 'astroturf' (fake grass roots) campaigns for a fee.
I think that it is important that partisan sources be treated as partisan even if they are pretending to be neutral. If an institute has received a donation of $100,000 from Exon it should not be cited as an impartial authority on global warming. If it does not cite its sources of funding at all it should not be considered impartial.
The same can also be said of industry analysts. In the computing industry it is well known that if you want a favorable report from certain 'analysts' the we that you assure that is to either commission the report directly, or if the group does not do that type of research you pay for 'consultancy' or a 'presentation', the going rate being $30,000 to $50,000 for a day of this 'work' or less.