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 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
Can I use letters in an archive left by a former congressman, but not (to my knowledge) published by any secondary source in an article? The archive is here. I will be quoting directly from the letter, without interpretation. Here's the diff.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking through my old edits of videogames related pages, I have noticed that several of them have been reverted due to this original research, apparently because I didn't specify a valid source. How do you exactly categorize things as original research? Is it always original research, even if it could be backed up by, possibly, hunreads of people who have noticed the same thing? Do I every time have to prove my "original research" with a screenshot, or other kind of media related to the game? Even if I do that, how do I prove it to some uptight go-by-the-book "wikinazi" that it is a reliable source, when it's in a place like ImageShack instead some highly-regarded university-level textbook, or some other of these rather ridiculous examples on the project page? Thank you. -- 80.223.127.229 ( talk) 17:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Get rid of this ridiculous policy. -- 86.138.52.77 ( talk) 21:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page currently says:
But I disagree. Sometimes one person can be right and everybody else wrong. Sometimes the lone odd-ball opinion is worthy of inclusion into an article. This opinion exists. Somebody thinks its true. And it may be right. We can never presume it's wrong. There have been numerous times in history when majority opinion was WRONG -- Newton's world was later reverted by Einstein -- Ptolemy's "planets revolve around the earth" was WRONG and later changed to Copernicus' "planets revolve around the sun". Wikipedia's policy, if it had been in force in the Middle Ages, would have excluded Copernicus and Einstein. What serves the growth of knowledge is a place where all opinions can duke it out, compete for validity, and in this battleground and in the firestorm of debate, the toughest ideas win out. But the competition is free and fair and MUST BE OPEN TO EVERYBODY even the lone wolf idea, otherwise we may miss out. And I think it's fair to label the "tiny minority" opinion as only being held by a tiny minority and give it very little weight in an article; but to exclude it entirely is a mistake. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Put another way -- excluding "tiny minority" opinions violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The exclude-the-tiny-minority policy assumes majority (and substantial minority) views are the ONLY OPINIONS WORTH REPORTING. This is highly POV. It makes Wikipedia a house organ for mainstream opinion. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Suppose it's the 1300s. You're interested in how planets move. You search the Wikipedia page (assuming it existed) but there's no mention of Copernicus's earth-revolves-around-the-sun policy. Why? He's a "tiny minority". He got excluded. He's been muted by Wikipedia's exclusion policy regarding "tiny minority" opinions. Now, my question is -- did YOU, the person trusting Wikipedia for learning about a particular topic, get a fair and balanced and accurate assessment? No - you got garbage. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
I strongly urge editors to reconsider this highly biased exclude-the-tiny-minority view policy, and instead make it possible (in some situations) to include it, but it's fair to label it as being held by only a tiny minority, and it's fair to give it very little weight in an article. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Please allow me to add another consideration. Please notice that the major criterion of inclusion into wikipedia is notability confirmed from reliable sources. Further, "notability/verifiability" does not mean "truth" (in wikipedia). If a minority view, while disagreed, but gained a wide attention, it goes into wikipedia. If nobody cares, so does wikipedia. (I am sure there are some articles in wikipedia about some claims made by some prominent scientist, but without wide support.) Within the analogy with Copernicus, (although I don't know exact chronology) he might well got himself even into Wikipedia-1544, if his clash with church have led to some noisy acts, such as anathema, ban, public disputes, whatever. Mukadderat ( talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The principle that we follow the sources rather than the truth is not because we don't care about the truth. It's because Wikipedia is written by a large number of people who tend to disagree with each other about what the truth is and get into fights. Consider a book written in 2007 about cold fusion, 9/11, Gödel's theorems, evolution, scientology, or any other topic like this, containing novel claims and ideas not found elsewhere and subsequently ignored by the general and expert publics. If you can devise a mechanism by which a bunch of mostly anonymous mostly non-expert editors with very different ages and backgrounds can agree whether the content of such a book is just nonsense that is not even worth considering, or whether it happens to be the truth – if you can do that, then you have not just solved a fundamental problem of Wikipedia but you have also earned yourself a place in the history of science. In the meantime, we need to approximate the truth using a few simple rules that actually work in practice and keep the disruption to a tolerable level. Hans Adler 09:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer wrote "the process of debating, thinking, freely participating, of ideas competing for validity -- this process should be never-ending". That's true, but it's not to say that the appropriate venue for such debate and competition is an encyclopedia. This is a place where lay people should be able to go to get an up-to-date summary of the consensus view of a topic, plus significant minority vies. It is not the place for specialists to debate, for new theories to be proposed or advanced, or opinions to be swayed. These activities are for (variously) peer reviewed journals, the popular press, interest group publications, etc. This is not about censorship, but rather about mission. Bongo matic 03:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been updating, rediting and compiling information on St. Thomas Aquinas Secondary School, Jordanhill. It was recently assesed and one of the suggestions made, and one that is completely sensical, is that I get a list of previous head teachers. Where though, as such a list does not exist on the internet, nor in a book. The only way to do it is to ask the current headteacher to provide a list (or some similar method). Firstly, does this count as 'original research' and secondly, if yes, is this one of the cases it is permissible? Would it have to be put on a website (even the school's website) for it to be allowed? Many thanks in advance. Pacman100 ( talk) 23:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
This request for comment [ [1]] deals with the interpretation and application of WP:OR (particularly WP:SYN) leading to NPOV issues and could use some outside eyes and voices. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes when we write articles on topics that are obscure or simply never the subject of much scholarly interest, there is no real history that can be found—no origin, no date of invention, no identifiable coming to fruition period, and so on. I deal with this a lot in writing article on billiards topics; whole games where the history is obscure. This presents a thorny problem from a comprehensiveness standpoint. We naturally expect from an encyclopedia article a a timeline, a beginning and an end, details and date of invention, etc. When confronted with such murk, and after an exhaustive survey of sources has failed, the next best thing is detail the obscurity itself, with some formulation in the vein of those I have headlined this thread with. But what do you do when you can't even find a source to back up that claim of obscurity? To my mind, stating "The history of X is not well documented", and all other versions of that sentiment, is original research unless actually verified by a reliable source. It is not uncommon in my experience to find that even that negative statement cannot be sourced—at least not directly. The only way around this is to engage in a necessarily self-referential appeal to the lack of documentation you have encountered, either in text or in a footnote, and that is what I am on about in this thread. Specifically, what is the community's take on such self-referential statements and are they just simply original research?
The test case I want to raise, is exploding cigar. What is in the article now was only possible from exhaustive research, finding a tidbit here, and another there. There is no history I can find, and I have looked hard. When I took this to good article nominations a year ago, I got the comprehensiveness call, and I explained that I had not found a history to include despite looking. I withdrew the nomination pending a second look (see the article's good article review page for deeper context). I recently finished reviewing every single hit on Google books and news; all results from Ancestry.com's vast newspaper archive, as well as other digital sources such as Chronicling America. So I just added this to the article in lieu of a history:
"exploding cigar"
and "exploding cigars"
reveals hundreds of relevant newspaper items.
"exploding cigar"
and "exploding cigars"
fails to reveal any dates or sources of invention, beginning use and manufacture, nor where they developed.
Is the above text and citations just unreserved original research that should be removed?-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 07:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
accessdate=
in citation templates is a self-ref, since it refers to the date at which the editor who put it there, i.e. the date at which Wikipedia as a publisher of information, accessed the cited work. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Here's the current wording of Wikipedia policy:
Here's a proposed revision (changes in italics):
This is a minor change, a tweaking of policy at best. But it allows the judgment of editors in rare exceptions to include a tiny-minority view (teensiest minority view?) IF they can make a strong case for inclusion. Plus the revised wording protects Wikipedia from charges of bias and censorship. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 16:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
I see no mention of press or news releases in the list of primary items in WP:PRIMARY. Are they there and I missed them? Or should I add it? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's look at an example of something that is not self published. When I write a journal paper, I have no idea if it will ever be accepted. There is no expectation that editors or referees will look upon if favorably, or that they will work with me to get it into a publishable state. They may reject it with no explanation at all. Thus, when a paper does get accepted, readers have some confidence that there has been a neutral, genuine review of the suitability of the paper. This cannot be assumed for things like press releases, SEC filings, advertisements, editorials, etc. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 01:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)
This may sound like I'm deliberately creating a ridiculous question and thereby disrupting Wikipedia, but I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Would looking up at the sky to see if it was blue and then saying it was blue on Wikipedia be original research? Someone the Person ( talk) 01:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I came here after discussion with SLR about the definition of antisemitism and whether it is being applied consistently. Through this discussion I am coming to realize that it would be a synthesis violation for me - as a contributor - to conclude that a double standard was being applied if one man criticized all Jews for something (but was not called anti-semitic) while another man was called anti-semitic for making precisely the same criticism. I gather that what seems like putting 2 and 2 together is not permitted by our NPOV and OR policies.
However, if a contributor discovers a reliable published source which puts 2 and 2 together like that, then their argument may be included (quoted or summarized) in the relevant article. Suppose we find something like this:
Assuming Al Fayer is prominent enough to have his views mentioned, then we could cite his reasoning, right?
The reason I am asking this is partly because I want to be sure I am not making a conflict-of-interest mistake by inadvertently making our article biased in favor of Sun Myung Moon, in response to his opponents. (I've been a follower of his for 32 years.)
The other reason is that if I can get a clear understanding of when and where arguments must be attributed, it will help a lot of us write more clearly and with less bias on politically charged controversies in the environmental and life sciences. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 16:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
"Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event" and "primary sources are sources very close to an event", we are told here. Is there meant to be an implication that this distinction does not apply to sources used in articles about theories, movements, populations, techniques, inventions, patents, formats etc etc? I wouldn't bother to ask except that the use of that word in this policy does not seem to be helping in a current discussion at Talk:Office Open XML#Potential sources. -- Nigelj ( talk) 12:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Observing the example here about the United Nations, I went to look at the real article. The first sentence in the body of that article is: "Following in the wake of the failed League of Nations (1919-1946), which the United States never joined, the United Nations was established in 1945 to maintain international peace and promote cooperation in solving international economic, social and humanitarian problems. ". This single sentence seems to contain numerous inferences of a similar sort. Some points:
My impression is that WP:SYN is currently a counsel of perfection of little practical value. I suggest that you try deconstructing a real article such as United Nations and seeing if you can make it a model of what you're trying to achieve. It would be better to point to such a real worked example than an artificial one. Colonel Warden ( talk) 22:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I have an issue with a guideline listed on the College and University Article Guidelines that deals with OR, and I thought some people here may want to weigh in. To summarize, there is a guideline that states "Refactoring rankings (71st nationally according to the source, but 2nd among colleges in the state) to boost the score constitutes original research and is not permitted, and I feel that it is not actually OR. This is a very precise, technical argument I'm making: I agree completely that many statements like the one quoted are written to advance a point of view or agenda, and thus are not permissible under WP:NPOV; however, I contend that the combination of two objective, verifiable pieces of information if presented in a neutral way is not OR and is therefore permissible. For example:
So I want to make clear what I am asking: In the opinion of you, the editors and admins interested in OR policy, is an objective and neutrally-worded statement that is based on a combination of two objective and verifiable pieces of information OR (and if so, should it be)? I highlight the "objective and neutral" part because I agree that the same info, if worded in a way to promote an agenda, is POV (and likely COI). - Nick talk 21:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Below is essentially the same new version of WP:SYNTH that was in WP:NOR on 23:22, 27 August 2009, which was reverted. The examples that are currently in WP:SYNTH would have still been easily accessible through a link at the end of the first paragraph of SYNTH in this new version at that time. This improvement to WP:SYNTH was possible since there was a page created a month and a half ago that contained the examples at the time when the new version below was added and during the month before. [2]
== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. [1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. For examples see Original synthesis at Wikipedia:No original research/Examples.
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 19:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
So what is the problem with primary sources? It would seem to me that a primary source in many situations would be the best citation, rather than secondary sources that more often than not, have something to gain from the publishing of information. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If people want to make substantive changes, could they please propose them here first? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps someone here can give the link to a diff where they, or anyone else, have used the Smith/Jones example to clarify SYNTH for another wikipedian. Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 07:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if this is a good example. Does it need to be here? Can it be stated just as well in three sentences? Could someone please state what rule it is supposed to illustrate? For example, the rule "don't vandalize" might have the example "Jones posts swears and deletes large blocks of content, so Smith temporarily blocks her". What exactly is the rule behind this section? M 21:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
User:M, to answer your question directly "What exactly is the rule behind this section?", there is no agreed upon rule. Although, several attempts have been made in the past to establish a clear definition of the synthesis rule, no consensus has been reached. However, most users here have agreed on a set of examples that serve to illustrate the rule: [3].
1. Everyone agrees that:
2. However, some find that definition too restrictive and deem it necessary to add an exception:
3. Among those who agree with that exception (2), there are some who believe that the exception itself requires an exception:
4. And among those who agree with this exception (3) to the exception (2), there are some who believe that it also requires an exception:
I hope this is helpful. Cheers, Phenylalanine ( talk) 03:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The section makes reference the "GFDL or another free license". Perhaps the reader should be directed to Wikipedia:Image use policy. I also think the Creative Commons should be explicitly mentioned. – droll [chat] 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The edit war over the WP:SYNTH examples reminds me that I’ve always been confused by WP:SYNTH and why it exists as part of policy. The section starts out with “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” I'm thinking “Why isn't this reduced to a more general rule such as 'Do not reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources?'” What's special about synthesis of multiple sources that's not covered under the more general rule?
My confusion deepens when I see the the first example. It's a single sentence about the UN and 160 wars that's entirely out of context and seems to bear no relationship at all to “RS A, RS B, synthesis C” that was used in the section lead.
The second example has paragraph with two sentences that presumably are based on one, maybe two RS. It just says “The first paragraph was properly sourced.” It’s a better example in that it shows sourced material followed by a WP:OR conclusion. However, I don’t see this as a direct example and clarification of “RS A, RS B, synthesis C.” It is a good example of “RS A, synthesis or conclusion B” but not “RS A and RS B synthesized into C.”
I'm guessing the WP:SYN section got added as someone must have wikilawyered their way around the more general "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research; see below." (the below links to WP:SYN). -- Marc Kupper| talk 07:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Do not combine items of information (facts, opinion, etc.) from a source or sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly reached in the source or sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published in a reliable source, and B is published in a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if one or more reliable sources have published the same deductive chain and result in relation to the topic of the article.
(Here's my 2 cents.) Perhaps the simplest way is to just modify the first sentence of the first paragraph in
WP:SYNTH:
== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==
Do not combine material
from multiple sourcesto reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of thesources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. [3] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
In this way, we remove the implication that this applies only to the case where the two facts are in different sources. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==
Care must be taken to not form arguments or conclusions that are not explicitly stated by a source. A synthesis of published material that advances a new position constitutes original research. [4] Stating an argument or conclusion in an article is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same position in relation to the topic of the article.
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
example commented out per feedback.-- Marc Kupper| talk 10:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Current version | Marc's proposal |
---|---|
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes
original research.
[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a
reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article ... (Examples) ...
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. |
Care must be taken to not form arguments or conclusions that are not explicitly stated by a source. A synthesis of published material that advances a new position constitutes
original research.
[6] Stating an argument or conclusion in an article is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same position in relation to the topic of the article.
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. (Followed by examples) |
Current version | Blueboar's proposal | Jayen's proposal |
---|---|---|
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.
[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a
reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article ... (Examples) ...
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. |
Original research is often introduced to articles through synthesis. Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
Do not, however, combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. [8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. (Examples) ... |
Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. Make sure that you do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or suggest a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. [9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. |
Jayen, I'm not seeing a substantive difference in your proposal. For example, Blueboar says, "Do not, however, combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." And you say, "Make sure that you do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or suggest a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
Is there a real difference between "reach a conclusion" and "reach or suggest a conclusion"? I can see "suggest" is maybe a little weaker, but what would a real example of that difference be, in a WP context? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
(This is my first, and maybe only, post in this thread.) I think Jayen's proposal is very nice. It fixes something that I have always thought was unfortunate about the present language here, which does not say that best practice actually includes doing any broad research of sources or even reading significant parts of them. Instead, the present language suggests cherry-picking facts out of numerous sources without regard for the topic as a whole. Jayen's version restores the proper order of events: first, do some general reading on the topic, taking note of what you see. Second, write the article, making sure it agrees with the things you read. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 19:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
What if we combined my proposal with Jayen's Blueboar ( talk) 19:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Combined version |
---|
Original research is often introduced to articles through synthesis. Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
Do not, however, combine material from multiple sources to reach or suggest a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. [10] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. (Examples) ... |
Seems like you folks are performing organ transplants when the patient only needs minor surgery, and you're harming the patient. Yikes! You are using a term "synthesis" in the first paragraph without explaining what it is until the second paragraph and you didn't address the issue of synthesis of material from the same source. (Didn't SlimVirgin bring up the "same source" issue originally?) The following version modifies just the first sentence, addressing the "same source" issue, and moves the last paragraph to after the first paragraph. Note that we still have "synthesis" described before the term is used, which is the way of this and the current version.
== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==
Do not combine material to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. [11] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
(Examples)
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 23:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Everyone. I've been lurking here for a while, trying to make sense of what the OR rule actually says. In the above discussions, I've noticed the disagreement over how restrictive or loose this rule should be, and over the best way to state the rule. I'd like to make a suggestion. (Although I know expertise holds no sway in Wikiland, I will mention that I am a professor who studies the law and behavior, specializing in how people deal with rules.)
I wondered how the law (at least in the US) would deal with the OR problem. After thinking about it a bit, I think I am able to boil this whole thing down into two simple rules (and one exception):
RULE 1: Any assertion of fact must be verifiable by a reliable source.
This rule basically overlaps with WP:V (as does much of the existing OR rule), and simply says that all fact are to be verifiable. No exceptions. (The law would also take the time to define what a "fact" is, which, in our case, would be a statement that explicitly or implicitly presents "true" information.)
RULE 2: Any inferences derived from facts must be attributable to a reliable source.
This second rule basically means that any commentary, explanation, insight, or other inference must not be that of the editor, but rather of some other entity that can be verified. The rule also implies the inference should be attributed to it's source, and not stated plainly so as to suggest that the inference is a fact (e.g., According to _____....).
EXCEPTION: Inferences derived through formal logic (e.g., mathematical transformation) are acceptable.
This exception is likely to cause some worry among some of you. In my impression of what the OR rule is supposed to do (as someone else put it "to keep crackpot theories off of WP"), some information may be perfectly acceptable, but would be excluded by the above rules. I propose that the inference "Alice Walton is 5th on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans, and if numbers 1-4 are all males, and if Alice Walton is a female, then Alice Walton is the wealthiest female in America" is acceptable. In cases where formal logic leads to one and only one possible conclusion (which, for the most part involves math equations), I suggest that WP allow the info to be stated. (Perhaps with a footnote.)
Anyway, I thought I'd just throw out my version for your consideration. - Nick talk 04:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Part of my interest in OR came from the fact that there are instances in which a piece of information might be verifiable, neutral, notable, and generally useful to our readers, yet be prohibited under OR. The "exception" I wrote above was my attempt to create a rule the allowed both basic math and the sort of examples I gave above (and the ones in my now archived question from a few weeks ago). As Carl says above, these are things that "do not materially extend the published literature" (which is a very good way to put it). Perhaps in these instances it might be best to cite WP:Ignore All Rules. And, Marc, I agree that the second rule should be trimmed. - Nick talk 17:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I have had this discussion before, but I find the use of the word "fact" to be dangerous. WP does not publish facts, it only publishes information that is attributable to a reliable source. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I had thought of the "fact" issue brought up by angryapathy, which is why I was careful to state "assertion of fact" instead of just "fact". I would assume that WP would only be interested in items that are believed to be true, and I also assume that most WP readers take it on good faith that we at least try to present only truthful information. - Nick talk 20:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No matter how many sources or citations one includes in adding to content, the converse of the subject/headline is always true. (That is "Wikipedia does publish original research or original thought.") At some point there was original research and original thought. It is humanly impossible to publish otherwise. So the entire premise of "no original research" is a lie. And non-truth is currently supported by the verifiability policy. Then, neutral point of view is automatically violated as policy, due to human error in writing an outright lie and allowing its support. Is there any concensus here to correct the error of policy? Edward Palamar ( talk) 12:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
One step, two steps - the actual publishing contains original thought. Why are the two uses of the word "original" not either placed in quotes and redefined, or have citations of their own, to make the sentence as printed a non-lie? Edward Palamar ( talk) 12:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that this flaw in Wikipedia policy, that is the stated lie "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." is conducive to violations of which I have been accused falsely (i.e. - what goes around, comes around), the actuality of what the rest of you seem to imply is - "An editor can only copy and paste another's writing." This statement uses 52 characters compared to 65 found in the lie. With all due respect to Wikipedia's efforts to have a comprehensive encyclopedia inclusive to contributions by anyone, there should be a similar practice of ethics in valueing anyone who may read it. None of you have seriously looked at the statement to the point of seeing how damaging it already is, else you wouldn't be trying to defend it. Edward Palamar ( talk) 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
In sum, the consensus definition for original research/thought is different than yours. While you may dislike the wording, the importance is the spirit of the guideline and the consensus behind it. Angryapathy ( talk) 17:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Analysis:
Wikipedia has written a sentence including the statement that it does not publish original thought, that is, what one would normally assume to be mental activity within the mind of a man.
In order for any words formulated from the mental activity to be verbalized, orally or in writing, there needs to be Grace, a source of strength, to overcome the inability of man to control his tongue. Man, without Grace, in the basic condition of a being doomed to die, is incapable of survival on his own, hence he has lost the ability to control his tongue, including thought. The enlightenment of the mind with Grace permits both the ability to think and to verbalize those thoughts. Any editor inside or outside of Wikipedia was under these bounds, the enlightenment due to Christ's Redemption being the release from original sin (inclusive to said bounds). If we take the use of 'original' as in 'original thought' to be thought before being enlightened, we would have to be alive before the time of Christ's Redemption, or we would have to reject Him willfully. In terms of free thought, to reject Him willfully would be a violation of neutral point of view. And as we who are alive are not alive before the time of Christ, the use of 'original' must refer to something else after Christ's Salvific work. As it is humanly impossible to verbalize without thought, 'original thought' can only refer to thought originating in a specific person or persons after Christ's coming. The thought is necessary to verbalize, so in this it remains intact as a consistent whole to the end of an auditory (oral) verbalization or of a written (published) message. For whatever reason one chooses to advocate the cutting off of the necessary thought to the end of publication does not change the fact that the thought is still present in the publication. Hence, it is not an issue of the wording of the sentence, it is the content and its implications.
There is not enough data to make the statement concerning consensus definition, Angryapathy. There are billions of people, with only eight showing. Also, I haven't failed in seeing anything as regards the sentence as quoted. Even if one only copies and pastes from another's writing, one has to think while doing it, original thought. Anything with more effort requires more thought, more original thought. When one selects "Save Page" one is publishing, even more original thought. And one has had to do original research to "Save Page". And unless one becomes brain dead while saving the page, there still is original research being put into publishing. But most importantly, there is no spirit in a lie. "Wikipedia should not be the original venue for publication." is much better as it allows, if necessary, some positive group interaction. Edward Palamar ( talk) 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
In place of "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." "Wikipedia should not be the original venue for publication." This would allow for a prophet/prophetess to prove him/herself rather than striking the prophet/prophetess with a lie. Edward Palamar ( talk) 02:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
In terms of clarity, it is best not to repeat the word(s) which one is trying to define in the definition. "Wikipedia should not be the original venue for publication." is not close to the lie as exposed in this : the putting of a sword into man between mind and work in "original thought" carries over as the same for "original research". And in both occurences, "original thought" and "original research", it constitutes assault. It is better to define "No original research" as a policy without the absolute, i.e., the use of "should", to allow for editors to place material they feel is correct and of benefit to everyone else, not in defiance, but to improve Wikipedia. There is always the discussion page to iron out things. Edward Palamar ( talk) 14:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe, based on the edits that Edward had been blocked for, that this argument mainly focuses around Edward trying to get around the policy of only including information that can be cited from reliable sources. This is one of the cores of WP, as people often wish to publish their ideas straight to Wikipedia without having any sort of fact-checking; Wikipedia is an appealing venue as it can be editted by anyone and is extremely popular. However, I highly doubt that this policy will ever change to allow anyone to post their unchecked thoughts and opinions on WP. This would destroy the reference ability and credibility of this site. Also, while Edward seems to be focusing on the title of, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought," any sort of confusion that may arise from that statement is explained by reading the rest of the article, which clarifies what those two terms mean. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
One of the good reasons to refute a lie, is to counter the damage it may have already done. Angryapathy, you tried to give spirit to a lie, yet in your belief, as stated, you reject a reliable source. You have also stated elsewhere here that WP does not publish facts. Now that statement is correct only under the assumption that everyone else enjoys the placing of a sword between a man's mind and a man's work. The lie you support seems to me to continue to wreak havoc with more lies. Edward Palamar ( talk) 23:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Duly noted, Blueboar. As to introducing the block issue here, there is already a place for addressing that. The meaning of "no original research" has been defined in licit terms. Edward Palamar ( talk) 03:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
While I would love to continue this disucssion, I think it is a moot point since the policy is explicit in that information must come from a reliable source and be verifiable. The sentence that Edward is questioning is basically a "header", where further explanation of the guideline/rule follows. If Edward has information that fits this criteria, he can add it. Angryapathy ( talk) 15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
If I claim that 777 × 286 = 222222 without citing a source, is that "OR"? Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, what if it's merely an algebraic identity that anyone can easily check in a few seconds, such as the following?
Or a trigonmetric identity, such as this?:
That one might take more than a minute, but it's just a secondary-school exercise. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above seems to be losing the point of having OR in the first place. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Obviously we want it to be of high quality, and to do so we require contents to be supported by reliable sources with the hope that the quality of the sources translates to that of Wikipedia. In other words, OR is only "the means to the end". If some math examples didn't appear in exactly the same way in any source, it could be, strictly speaking, considered "synthetic". But what is the harm? What is wrong with OR isn't because it is "original" but because OR materials tend to be unverifiable or are incredible claims. Simply saying "synthesis" is wrong is very wrong: it has to take this context into account. Otherwise we get a silly situation that many math examples are judged synthetic and are subject to deletion. -- Taku ( talk) 12:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. This was a problem I tried to point to & start a conversation about with my draft of Wikipedia:These are not original research, specifically:
Simple logical deductions [are not original research]. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should, again, not be included under this case because they require skills that not all readers possess, and involve a large number of steps that introduce the possibility of errors.
My intent was to close off points of contention whose only purpose was to wikilawyer over statements otherwise perfectly acceptable to an average reader -- tendentious editing. For example, no one needs to provide a source for the statement "X is a town in the country of Y" if all of the population statistics is taken from the government statistical office of Y -- an intelligent reader will be able to deduce that fact. Responding directly to Michael Hardy's example above, we assume readers can perform basic mathematical calculations -- or have a calculator at hand. However, we do not expect them to perform integral calculus because most Wikipedia users do not know how to do this. (Where we should draw the line in this discipline -- & others -- has never been discussed to my knowledge.) -- llywrch ( talk) 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Is a patent considered a primary source? I notice it is NOT listed in the examples of primary sources as of 10 Sep 2009:
Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
I would like to develop a consensus on whether is it okay to add the word "patent" to the "Other examples..." list in the {{WP:NOR}} page. My PROPOSAL is to add patent to the list. What do others think? N2e ( talk) 20:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, got it. CONSENSUS (at least to this point): Patents are generally primary sources, may be used (with caution), and 'No, we should not add patents to the list of examples in the WP:NOR article. Thanks everone for weighing in. N2e ( talk) 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent. [5]
(outdent) That's not quite true. Primary sources are not necessarily raw and unchecked. A reporter on the scene of an accident can have her article published, and we will consider it a primary source, because she was close to the event she's describing. At the newspaper, prior to publishing, the article would have undergone a copy edit and perhaps a legal review, and maybe other types of scrutiny. It's still primary, due to closeness. In other words, 'primary' on WP does not equate to crude, unchecked or raw information, just information which is close to the source. In the case of a patent, it does undergo quite a bit of scrutiny. Typically, after the inventor there may be the patent lawyer reviewing and possibly modifying, then the patent examiner, and sometimes others. There may be some give and take, and the final version would be a result of input from several sources (sometimes even courts if there is subsequent litigation). Often the review of the prior art is fairly broad and well sourced, and can be considered 'secondary' (due to distance plus multiple independent reliable sources reviewing it), while the specific invention would generally be primary (due to distance). In summary, primary vs. secondary hinges on distance, not 'crudeness', and patents (in general) would be primary for the specific invention, and possibly secondary for the prior art review. Crum375 ( talk) 01:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
After the first three comments to my question which started this section, it appeared that we might have a consensus on the matter of whether or not we should add "patents" to the list of examples in the WP:NOR policy as it exists today; tentative consensus was looking to be "No". After that point however, there has been a great deal of discussion and debate about the nature of using patents as sources at all. However that debate ends, I do believe the strong opinions expressed probably argue FOR addressing the issue of patents explicitly in the NOR article -- whether we choose to add them to the list of examples of sources that are (generally) primary sources, or address them some other way. So I am withdrawing my earlier attempt at summarizing the consensus. I now think that we should work to develop a consensus such that we can explicitly address patents in the NOR policy. N2e ( talk) 17:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
Can I use letters in an archive left by a former congressman, but not (to my knowledge) published by any secondary source in an article? The archive is here. I will be quoting directly from the letter, without interpretation. Here's the diff.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking through my old edits of videogames related pages, I have noticed that several of them have been reverted due to this original research, apparently because I didn't specify a valid source. How do you exactly categorize things as original research? Is it always original research, even if it could be backed up by, possibly, hunreads of people who have noticed the same thing? Do I every time have to prove my "original research" with a screenshot, or other kind of media related to the game? Even if I do that, how do I prove it to some uptight go-by-the-book "wikinazi" that it is a reliable source, when it's in a place like ImageShack instead some highly-regarded university-level textbook, or some other of these rather ridiculous examples on the project page? Thank you. -- 80.223.127.229 ( talk) 17:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Get rid of this ridiculous policy. -- 86.138.52.77 ( talk) 21:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page currently says:
But I disagree. Sometimes one person can be right and everybody else wrong. Sometimes the lone odd-ball opinion is worthy of inclusion into an article. This opinion exists. Somebody thinks its true. And it may be right. We can never presume it's wrong. There have been numerous times in history when majority opinion was WRONG -- Newton's world was later reverted by Einstein -- Ptolemy's "planets revolve around the earth" was WRONG and later changed to Copernicus' "planets revolve around the sun". Wikipedia's policy, if it had been in force in the Middle Ages, would have excluded Copernicus and Einstein. What serves the growth of knowledge is a place where all opinions can duke it out, compete for validity, and in this battleground and in the firestorm of debate, the toughest ideas win out. But the competition is free and fair and MUST BE OPEN TO EVERYBODY even the lone wolf idea, otherwise we may miss out. And I think it's fair to label the "tiny minority" opinion as only being held by a tiny minority and give it very little weight in an article; but to exclude it entirely is a mistake. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Put another way -- excluding "tiny minority" opinions violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The exclude-the-tiny-minority policy assumes majority (and substantial minority) views are the ONLY OPINIONS WORTH REPORTING. This is highly POV. It makes Wikipedia a house organ for mainstream opinion. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Suppose it's the 1300s. You're interested in how planets move. You search the Wikipedia page (assuming it existed) but there's no mention of Copernicus's earth-revolves-around-the-sun policy. Why? He's a "tiny minority". He got excluded. He's been muted by Wikipedia's exclusion policy regarding "tiny minority" opinions. Now, my question is -- did YOU, the person trusting Wikipedia for learning about a particular topic, get a fair and balanced and accurate assessment? No - you got garbage. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
I strongly urge editors to reconsider this highly biased exclude-the-tiny-minority view policy, and instead make it possible (in some situations) to include it, but it's fair to label it as being held by only a tiny minority, and it's fair to give it very little weight in an article. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Please allow me to add another consideration. Please notice that the major criterion of inclusion into wikipedia is notability confirmed from reliable sources. Further, "notability/verifiability" does not mean "truth" (in wikipedia). If a minority view, while disagreed, but gained a wide attention, it goes into wikipedia. If nobody cares, so does wikipedia. (I am sure there are some articles in wikipedia about some claims made by some prominent scientist, but without wide support.) Within the analogy with Copernicus, (although I don't know exact chronology) he might well got himself even into Wikipedia-1544, if his clash with church have led to some noisy acts, such as anathema, ban, public disputes, whatever. Mukadderat ( talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The principle that we follow the sources rather than the truth is not because we don't care about the truth. It's because Wikipedia is written by a large number of people who tend to disagree with each other about what the truth is and get into fights. Consider a book written in 2007 about cold fusion, 9/11, Gödel's theorems, evolution, scientology, or any other topic like this, containing novel claims and ideas not found elsewhere and subsequently ignored by the general and expert publics. If you can devise a mechanism by which a bunch of mostly anonymous mostly non-expert editors with very different ages and backgrounds can agree whether the content of such a book is just nonsense that is not even worth considering, or whether it happens to be the truth – if you can do that, then you have not just solved a fundamental problem of Wikipedia but you have also earned yourself a place in the history of science. In the meantime, we need to approximate the truth using a few simple rules that actually work in practice and keep the disruption to a tolerable level. Hans Adler 09:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer wrote "the process of debating, thinking, freely participating, of ideas competing for validity -- this process should be never-ending". That's true, but it's not to say that the appropriate venue for such debate and competition is an encyclopedia. This is a place where lay people should be able to go to get an up-to-date summary of the consensus view of a topic, plus significant minority vies. It is not the place for specialists to debate, for new theories to be proposed or advanced, or opinions to be swayed. These activities are for (variously) peer reviewed journals, the popular press, interest group publications, etc. This is not about censorship, but rather about mission. Bongo matic 03:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been updating, rediting and compiling information on St. Thomas Aquinas Secondary School, Jordanhill. It was recently assesed and one of the suggestions made, and one that is completely sensical, is that I get a list of previous head teachers. Where though, as such a list does not exist on the internet, nor in a book. The only way to do it is to ask the current headteacher to provide a list (or some similar method). Firstly, does this count as 'original research' and secondly, if yes, is this one of the cases it is permissible? Would it have to be put on a website (even the school's website) for it to be allowed? Many thanks in advance. Pacman100 ( talk) 23:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
This request for comment [ [1]] deals with the interpretation and application of WP:OR (particularly WP:SYN) leading to NPOV issues and could use some outside eyes and voices. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes when we write articles on topics that are obscure or simply never the subject of much scholarly interest, there is no real history that can be found—no origin, no date of invention, no identifiable coming to fruition period, and so on. I deal with this a lot in writing article on billiards topics; whole games where the history is obscure. This presents a thorny problem from a comprehensiveness standpoint. We naturally expect from an encyclopedia article a a timeline, a beginning and an end, details and date of invention, etc. When confronted with such murk, and after an exhaustive survey of sources has failed, the next best thing is detail the obscurity itself, with some formulation in the vein of those I have headlined this thread with. But what do you do when you can't even find a source to back up that claim of obscurity? To my mind, stating "The history of X is not well documented", and all other versions of that sentiment, is original research unless actually verified by a reliable source. It is not uncommon in my experience to find that even that negative statement cannot be sourced—at least not directly. The only way around this is to engage in a necessarily self-referential appeal to the lack of documentation you have encountered, either in text or in a footnote, and that is what I am on about in this thread. Specifically, what is the community's take on such self-referential statements and are they just simply original research?
The test case I want to raise, is exploding cigar. What is in the article now was only possible from exhaustive research, finding a tidbit here, and another there. There is no history I can find, and I have looked hard. When I took this to good article nominations a year ago, I got the comprehensiveness call, and I explained that I had not found a history to include despite looking. I withdrew the nomination pending a second look (see the article's good article review page for deeper context). I recently finished reviewing every single hit on Google books and news; all results from Ancestry.com's vast newspaper archive, as well as other digital sources such as Chronicling America. So I just added this to the article in lieu of a history:
"exploding cigar"
and "exploding cigars"
reveals hundreds of relevant newspaper items.
"exploding cigar"
and "exploding cigars"
fails to reveal any dates or sources of invention, beginning use and manufacture, nor where they developed.
Is the above text and citations just unreserved original research that should be removed?-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 07:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
accessdate=
in citation templates is a self-ref, since it refers to the date at which the editor who put it there, i.e. the date at which Wikipedia as a publisher of information, accessed the cited work. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Here's the current wording of Wikipedia policy:
Here's a proposed revision (changes in italics):
This is a minor change, a tweaking of policy at best. But it allows the judgment of editors in rare exceptions to include a tiny-minority view (teensiest minority view?) IF they can make a strong case for inclusion. Plus the revised wording protects Wikipedia from charges of bias and censorship. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 16:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
I see no mention of press or news releases in the list of primary items in WP:PRIMARY. Are they there and I missed them? Or should I add it? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's look at an example of something that is not self published. When I write a journal paper, I have no idea if it will ever be accepted. There is no expectation that editors or referees will look upon if favorably, or that they will work with me to get it into a publishable state. They may reject it with no explanation at all. Thus, when a paper does get accepted, readers have some confidence that there has been a neutral, genuine review of the suitability of the paper. This cannot be assumed for things like press releases, SEC filings, advertisements, editorials, etc. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 01:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)
This may sound like I'm deliberately creating a ridiculous question and thereby disrupting Wikipedia, but I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Would looking up at the sky to see if it was blue and then saying it was blue on Wikipedia be original research? Someone the Person ( talk) 01:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I came here after discussion with SLR about the definition of antisemitism and whether it is being applied consistently. Through this discussion I am coming to realize that it would be a synthesis violation for me - as a contributor - to conclude that a double standard was being applied if one man criticized all Jews for something (but was not called anti-semitic) while another man was called anti-semitic for making precisely the same criticism. I gather that what seems like putting 2 and 2 together is not permitted by our NPOV and OR policies.
However, if a contributor discovers a reliable published source which puts 2 and 2 together like that, then their argument may be included (quoted or summarized) in the relevant article. Suppose we find something like this:
Assuming Al Fayer is prominent enough to have his views mentioned, then we could cite his reasoning, right?
The reason I am asking this is partly because I want to be sure I am not making a conflict-of-interest mistake by inadvertently making our article biased in favor of Sun Myung Moon, in response to his opponents. (I've been a follower of his for 32 years.)
The other reason is that if I can get a clear understanding of when and where arguments must be attributed, it will help a lot of us write more clearly and with less bias on politically charged controversies in the environmental and life sciences. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 16:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
"Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event" and "primary sources are sources very close to an event", we are told here. Is there meant to be an implication that this distinction does not apply to sources used in articles about theories, movements, populations, techniques, inventions, patents, formats etc etc? I wouldn't bother to ask except that the use of that word in this policy does not seem to be helping in a current discussion at Talk:Office Open XML#Potential sources. -- Nigelj ( talk) 12:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Observing the example here about the United Nations, I went to look at the real article. The first sentence in the body of that article is: "Following in the wake of the failed League of Nations (1919-1946), which the United States never joined, the United Nations was established in 1945 to maintain international peace and promote cooperation in solving international economic, social and humanitarian problems. ". This single sentence seems to contain numerous inferences of a similar sort. Some points:
My impression is that WP:SYN is currently a counsel of perfection of little practical value. I suggest that you try deconstructing a real article such as United Nations and seeing if you can make it a model of what you're trying to achieve. It would be better to point to such a real worked example than an artificial one. Colonel Warden ( talk) 22:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I have an issue with a guideline listed on the College and University Article Guidelines that deals with OR, and I thought some people here may want to weigh in. To summarize, there is a guideline that states "Refactoring rankings (71st nationally according to the source, but 2nd among colleges in the state) to boost the score constitutes original research and is not permitted, and I feel that it is not actually OR. This is a very precise, technical argument I'm making: I agree completely that many statements like the one quoted are written to advance a point of view or agenda, and thus are not permissible under WP:NPOV; however, I contend that the combination of two objective, verifiable pieces of information if presented in a neutral way is not OR and is therefore permissible. For example:
So I want to make clear what I am asking: In the opinion of you, the editors and admins interested in OR policy, is an objective and neutrally-worded statement that is based on a combination of two objective and verifiable pieces of information OR (and if so, should it be)? I highlight the "objective and neutral" part because I agree that the same info, if worded in a way to promote an agenda, is POV (and likely COI). - Nick talk 21:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Below is essentially the same new version of WP:SYNTH that was in WP:NOR on 23:22, 27 August 2009, which was reverted. The examples that are currently in WP:SYNTH would have still been easily accessible through a link at the end of the first paragraph of SYNTH in this new version at that time. This improvement to WP:SYNTH was possible since there was a page created a month and a half ago that contained the examples at the time when the new version below was added and during the month before. [2]
== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. [1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. For examples see Original synthesis at Wikipedia:No original research/Examples.
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 19:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
So what is the problem with primary sources? It would seem to me that a primary source in many situations would be the best citation, rather than secondary sources that more often than not, have something to gain from the publishing of information. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If people want to make substantive changes, could they please propose them here first? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps someone here can give the link to a diff where they, or anyone else, have used the Smith/Jones example to clarify SYNTH for another wikipedian. Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 07:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if this is a good example. Does it need to be here? Can it be stated just as well in three sentences? Could someone please state what rule it is supposed to illustrate? For example, the rule "don't vandalize" might have the example "Jones posts swears and deletes large blocks of content, so Smith temporarily blocks her". What exactly is the rule behind this section? M 21:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
User:M, to answer your question directly "What exactly is the rule behind this section?", there is no agreed upon rule. Although, several attempts have been made in the past to establish a clear definition of the synthesis rule, no consensus has been reached. However, most users here have agreed on a set of examples that serve to illustrate the rule: [3].
1. Everyone agrees that:
2. However, some find that definition too restrictive and deem it necessary to add an exception:
3. Among those who agree with that exception (2), there are some who believe that the exception itself requires an exception:
4. And among those who agree with this exception (3) to the exception (2), there are some who believe that it also requires an exception:
I hope this is helpful. Cheers, Phenylalanine ( talk) 03:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The section makes reference the "GFDL or another free license". Perhaps the reader should be directed to Wikipedia:Image use policy. I also think the Creative Commons should be explicitly mentioned. – droll [chat] 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The edit war over the WP:SYNTH examples reminds me that I’ve always been confused by WP:SYNTH and why it exists as part of policy. The section starts out with “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” I'm thinking “Why isn't this reduced to a more general rule such as 'Do not reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources?'” What's special about synthesis of multiple sources that's not covered under the more general rule?
My confusion deepens when I see the the first example. It's a single sentence about the UN and 160 wars that's entirely out of context and seems to bear no relationship at all to “RS A, RS B, synthesis C” that was used in the section lead.
The second example has paragraph with two sentences that presumably are based on one, maybe two RS. It just says “The first paragraph was properly sourced.” It’s a better example in that it shows sourced material followed by a WP:OR conclusion. However, I don’t see this as a direct example and clarification of “RS A, RS B, synthesis C.” It is a good example of “RS A, synthesis or conclusion B” but not “RS A and RS B synthesized into C.”
I'm guessing the WP:SYN section got added as someone must have wikilawyered their way around the more general "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research; see below." (the below links to WP:SYN). -- Marc Kupper| talk 07:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Do not combine items of information (facts, opinion, etc.) from a source or sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly reached in the source or sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published in a reliable source, and B is published in a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if one or more reliable sources have published the same deductive chain and result in relation to the topic of the article.
(Here's my 2 cents.) Perhaps the simplest way is to just modify the first sentence of the first paragraph in
WP:SYNTH:
== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==
Do not combine material
from multiple sourcesto reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of thesources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. [3] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
In this way, we remove the implication that this applies only to the case where the two facts are in different sources. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==
Care must be taken to not form arguments or conclusions that are not explicitly stated by a source. A synthesis of published material that advances a new position constitutes original research. [4] Stating an argument or conclusion in an article is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same position in relation to the topic of the article.
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
example commented out per feedback.-- Marc Kupper| talk 10:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Current version | Marc's proposal |
---|---|
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes
original research.
[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a
reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article ... (Examples) ...
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. |
Care must be taken to not form arguments or conclusions that are not explicitly stated by a source. A synthesis of published material that advances a new position constitutes
original research.
[6] Stating an argument or conclusion in an article is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same position in relation to the topic of the article.
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. (Followed by examples) |
Current version | Blueboar's proposal | Jayen's proposal |
---|---|---|
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.
[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a
reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article ... (Examples) ...
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. |
Original research is often introduced to articles through synthesis. Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
Do not, however, combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. [8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. (Examples) ... |
Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. Make sure that you do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or suggest a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. [9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. |
Jayen, I'm not seeing a substantive difference in your proposal. For example, Blueboar says, "Do not, however, combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." And you say, "Make sure that you do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or suggest a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
Is there a real difference between "reach a conclusion" and "reach or suggest a conclusion"? I can see "suggest" is maybe a little weaker, but what would a real example of that difference be, in a WP context? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
(This is my first, and maybe only, post in this thread.) I think Jayen's proposal is very nice. It fixes something that I have always thought was unfortunate about the present language here, which does not say that best practice actually includes doing any broad research of sources or even reading significant parts of them. Instead, the present language suggests cherry-picking facts out of numerous sources without regard for the topic as a whole. Jayen's version restores the proper order of events: first, do some general reading on the topic, taking note of what you see. Second, write the article, making sure it agrees with the things you read. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 19:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
What if we combined my proposal with Jayen's Blueboar ( talk) 19:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Combined version |
---|
Original research is often introduced to articles through synthesis. Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
Do not, however, combine material from multiple sources to reach or suggest a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. [10] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. (Examples) ... |
Seems like you folks are performing organ transplants when the patient only needs minor surgery, and you're harming the patient. Yikes! You are using a term "synthesis" in the first paragraph without explaining what it is until the second paragraph and you didn't address the issue of synthesis of material from the same source. (Didn't SlimVirgin bring up the "same source" issue originally?) The following version modifies just the first sentence, addressing the "same source" issue, and moves the last paragraph to after the first paragraph. Note that we still have "synthesis" described before the term is used, which is the way of this and the current version.
== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==
Do not combine material to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. [11] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
(Examples)
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 23:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Everyone. I've been lurking here for a while, trying to make sense of what the OR rule actually says. In the above discussions, I've noticed the disagreement over how restrictive or loose this rule should be, and over the best way to state the rule. I'd like to make a suggestion. (Although I know expertise holds no sway in Wikiland, I will mention that I am a professor who studies the law and behavior, specializing in how people deal with rules.)
I wondered how the law (at least in the US) would deal with the OR problem. After thinking about it a bit, I think I am able to boil this whole thing down into two simple rules (and one exception):
RULE 1: Any assertion of fact must be verifiable by a reliable source.
This rule basically overlaps with WP:V (as does much of the existing OR rule), and simply says that all fact are to be verifiable. No exceptions. (The law would also take the time to define what a "fact" is, which, in our case, would be a statement that explicitly or implicitly presents "true" information.)
RULE 2: Any inferences derived from facts must be attributable to a reliable source.
This second rule basically means that any commentary, explanation, insight, or other inference must not be that of the editor, but rather of some other entity that can be verified. The rule also implies the inference should be attributed to it's source, and not stated plainly so as to suggest that the inference is a fact (e.g., According to _____....).
EXCEPTION: Inferences derived through formal logic (e.g., mathematical transformation) are acceptable.
This exception is likely to cause some worry among some of you. In my impression of what the OR rule is supposed to do (as someone else put it "to keep crackpot theories off of WP"), some information may be perfectly acceptable, but would be excluded by the above rules. I propose that the inference "Alice Walton is 5th on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans, and if numbers 1-4 are all males, and if Alice Walton is a female, then Alice Walton is the wealthiest female in America" is acceptable. In cases where formal logic leads to one and only one possible conclusion (which, for the most part involves math equations), I suggest that WP allow the info to be stated. (Perhaps with a footnote.)
Anyway, I thought I'd just throw out my version for your consideration. - Nick talk 04:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Part of my interest in OR came from the fact that there are instances in which a piece of information might be verifiable, neutral, notable, and generally useful to our readers, yet be prohibited under OR. The "exception" I wrote above was my attempt to create a rule the allowed both basic math and the sort of examples I gave above (and the ones in my now archived question from a few weeks ago). As Carl says above, these are things that "do not materially extend the published literature" (which is a very good way to put it). Perhaps in these instances it might be best to cite WP:Ignore All Rules. And, Marc, I agree that the second rule should be trimmed. - Nick talk 17:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I have had this discussion before, but I find the use of the word "fact" to be dangerous. WP does not publish facts, it only publishes information that is attributable to a reliable source. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I had thought of the "fact" issue brought up by angryapathy, which is why I was careful to state "assertion of fact" instead of just "fact". I would assume that WP would only be interested in items that are believed to be true, and I also assume that most WP readers take it on good faith that we at least try to present only truthful information. - Nick talk 20:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No matter how many sources or citations one includes in adding to content, the converse of the subject/headline is always true. (That is "Wikipedia does publish original research or original thought.") At some point there was original research and original thought. It is humanly impossible to publish otherwise. So the entire premise of "no original research" is a lie. And non-truth is currently supported by the verifiability policy. Then, neutral point of view is automatically violated as policy, due to human error in writing an outright lie and allowing its support. Is there any concensus here to correct the error of policy? Edward Palamar ( talk) 12:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
One step, two steps - the actual publishing contains original thought. Why are the two uses of the word "original" not either placed in quotes and redefined, or have citations of their own, to make the sentence as printed a non-lie? Edward Palamar ( talk) 12:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that this flaw in Wikipedia policy, that is the stated lie "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." is conducive to violations of which I have been accused falsely (i.e. - what goes around, comes around), the actuality of what the rest of you seem to imply is - "An editor can only copy and paste another's writing." This statement uses 52 characters compared to 65 found in the lie. With all due respect to Wikipedia's efforts to have a comprehensive encyclopedia inclusive to contributions by anyone, there should be a similar practice of ethics in valueing anyone who may read it. None of you have seriously looked at the statement to the point of seeing how damaging it already is, else you wouldn't be trying to defend it. Edward Palamar ( talk) 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
In sum, the consensus definition for original research/thought is different than yours. While you may dislike the wording, the importance is the spirit of the guideline and the consensus behind it. Angryapathy ( talk) 17:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Analysis:
Wikipedia has written a sentence including the statement that it does not publish original thought, that is, what one would normally assume to be mental activity within the mind of a man.
In order for any words formulated from the mental activity to be verbalized, orally or in writing, there needs to be Grace, a source of strength, to overcome the inability of man to control his tongue. Man, without Grace, in the basic condition of a being doomed to die, is incapable of survival on his own, hence he has lost the ability to control his tongue, including thought. The enlightenment of the mind with Grace permits both the ability to think and to verbalize those thoughts. Any editor inside or outside of Wikipedia was under these bounds, the enlightenment due to Christ's Redemption being the release from original sin (inclusive to said bounds). If we take the use of 'original' as in 'original thought' to be thought before being enlightened, we would have to be alive before the time of Christ's Redemption, or we would have to reject Him willfully. In terms of free thought, to reject Him willfully would be a violation of neutral point of view. And as we who are alive are not alive before the time of Christ, the use of 'original' must refer to something else after Christ's Salvific work. As it is humanly impossible to verbalize without thought, 'original thought' can only refer to thought originating in a specific person or persons after Christ's coming. The thought is necessary to verbalize, so in this it remains intact as a consistent whole to the end of an auditory (oral) verbalization or of a written (published) message. For whatever reason one chooses to advocate the cutting off of the necessary thought to the end of publication does not change the fact that the thought is still present in the publication. Hence, it is not an issue of the wording of the sentence, it is the content and its implications.
There is not enough data to make the statement concerning consensus definition, Angryapathy. There are billions of people, with only eight showing. Also, I haven't failed in seeing anything as regards the sentence as quoted. Even if one only copies and pastes from another's writing, one has to think while doing it, original thought. Anything with more effort requires more thought, more original thought. When one selects "Save Page" one is publishing, even more original thought. And one has had to do original research to "Save Page". And unless one becomes brain dead while saving the page, there still is original research being put into publishing. But most importantly, there is no spirit in a lie. "Wikipedia should not be the original venue for publication." is much better as it allows, if necessary, some positive group interaction. Edward Palamar ( talk) 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
In place of "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." "Wikipedia should not be the original venue for publication." This would allow for a prophet/prophetess to prove him/herself rather than striking the prophet/prophetess with a lie. Edward Palamar ( talk) 02:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
In terms of clarity, it is best not to repeat the word(s) which one is trying to define in the definition. "Wikipedia should not be the original venue for publication." is not close to the lie as exposed in this : the putting of a sword into man between mind and work in "original thought" carries over as the same for "original research". And in both occurences, "original thought" and "original research", it constitutes assault. It is better to define "No original research" as a policy without the absolute, i.e., the use of "should", to allow for editors to place material they feel is correct and of benefit to everyone else, not in defiance, but to improve Wikipedia. There is always the discussion page to iron out things. Edward Palamar ( talk) 14:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe, based on the edits that Edward had been blocked for, that this argument mainly focuses around Edward trying to get around the policy of only including information that can be cited from reliable sources. This is one of the cores of WP, as people often wish to publish their ideas straight to Wikipedia without having any sort of fact-checking; Wikipedia is an appealing venue as it can be editted by anyone and is extremely popular. However, I highly doubt that this policy will ever change to allow anyone to post their unchecked thoughts and opinions on WP. This would destroy the reference ability and credibility of this site. Also, while Edward seems to be focusing on the title of, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought," any sort of confusion that may arise from that statement is explained by reading the rest of the article, which clarifies what those two terms mean. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
One of the good reasons to refute a lie, is to counter the damage it may have already done. Angryapathy, you tried to give spirit to a lie, yet in your belief, as stated, you reject a reliable source. You have also stated elsewhere here that WP does not publish facts. Now that statement is correct only under the assumption that everyone else enjoys the placing of a sword between a man's mind and a man's work. The lie you support seems to me to continue to wreak havoc with more lies. Edward Palamar ( talk) 23:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Duly noted, Blueboar. As to introducing the block issue here, there is already a place for addressing that. The meaning of "no original research" has been defined in licit terms. Edward Palamar ( talk) 03:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
While I would love to continue this disucssion, I think it is a moot point since the policy is explicit in that information must come from a reliable source and be verifiable. The sentence that Edward is questioning is basically a "header", where further explanation of the guideline/rule follows. If Edward has information that fits this criteria, he can add it. Angryapathy ( talk) 15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
If I claim that 777 × 286 = 222222 without citing a source, is that "OR"? Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, what if it's merely an algebraic identity that anyone can easily check in a few seconds, such as the following?
Or a trigonmetric identity, such as this?:
That one might take more than a minute, but it's just a secondary-school exercise. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above seems to be losing the point of having OR in the first place. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Obviously we want it to be of high quality, and to do so we require contents to be supported by reliable sources with the hope that the quality of the sources translates to that of Wikipedia. In other words, OR is only "the means to the end". If some math examples didn't appear in exactly the same way in any source, it could be, strictly speaking, considered "synthetic". But what is the harm? What is wrong with OR isn't because it is "original" but because OR materials tend to be unverifiable or are incredible claims. Simply saying "synthesis" is wrong is very wrong: it has to take this context into account. Otherwise we get a silly situation that many math examples are judged synthetic and are subject to deletion. -- Taku ( talk) 12:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. This was a problem I tried to point to & start a conversation about with my draft of Wikipedia:These are not original research, specifically:
Simple logical deductions [are not original research]. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should, again, not be included under this case because they require skills that not all readers possess, and involve a large number of steps that introduce the possibility of errors.
My intent was to close off points of contention whose only purpose was to wikilawyer over statements otherwise perfectly acceptable to an average reader -- tendentious editing. For example, no one needs to provide a source for the statement "X is a town in the country of Y" if all of the population statistics is taken from the government statistical office of Y -- an intelligent reader will be able to deduce that fact. Responding directly to Michael Hardy's example above, we assume readers can perform basic mathematical calculations -- or have a calculator at hand. However, we do not expect them to perform integral calculus because most Wikipedia users do not know how to do this. (Where we should draw the line in this discipline -- & others -- has never been discussed to my knowledge.) -- llywrch ( talk) 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Is a patent considered a primary source? I notice it is NOT listed in the examples of primary sources as of 10 Sep 2009:
Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
I would like to develop a consensus on whether is it okay to add the word "patent" to the "Other examples..." list in the {{WP:NOR}} page. My PROPOSAL is to add patent to the list. What do others think? N2e ( talk) 20:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, got it. CONSENSUS (at least to this point): Patents are generally primary sources, may be used (with caution), and 'No, we should not add patents to the list of examples in the WP:NOR article. Thanks everone for weighing in. N2e ( talk) 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent. [5]
(outdent) That's not quite true. Primary sources are not necessarily raw and unchecked. A reporter on the scene of an accident can have her article published, and we will consider it a primary source, because she was close to the event she's describing. At the newspaper, prior to publishing, the article would have undergone a copy edit and perhaps a legal review, and maybe other types of scrutiny. It's still primary, due to closeness. In other words, 'primary' on WP does not equate to crude, unchecked or raw information, just information which is close to the source. In the case of a patent, it does undergo quite a bit of scrutiny. Typically, after the inventor there may be the patent lawyer reviewing and possibly modifying, then the patent examiner, and sometimes others. There may be some give and take, and the final version would be a result of input from several sources (sometimes even courts if there is subsequent litigation). Often the review of the prior art is fairly broad and well sourced, and can be considered 'secondary' (due to distance plus multiple independent reliable sources reviewing it), while the specific invention would generally be primary (due to distance). In summary, primary vs. secondary hinges on distance, not 'crudeness', and patents (in general) would be primary for the specific invention, and possibly secondary for the prior art review. Crum375 ( talk) 01:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
After the first three comments to my question which started this section, it appeared that we might have a consensus on the matter of whether or not we should add "patents" to the list of examples in the WP:NOR policy as it exists today; tentative consensus was looking to be "No". After that point however, there has been a great deal of discussion and debate about the nature of using patents as sources at all. However that debate ends, I do believe the strong opinions expressed probably argue FOR addressing the issue of patents explicitly in the NOR article -- whether we choose to add them to the list of examples of sources that are (generally) primary sources, or address them some other way. So I am withdrawing my earlier attempt at summarizing the consensus. I now think that we should work to develop a consensus such that we can explicitly address patents in the NOR policy. N2e ( talk) 17:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)