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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Exactly the same as the subject. Duke toaster 19:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This falls between OR and NPOV but I'm a bit concerned by historical articles where an editor cites selected passages from a primary source in order to present a particular opinion as to the topic of the primary source and the concerns of the author.
Does anyone have any ideas about how this policy might address that problem? -- SteveMcCluskey 15:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Just after finishing this, I found that Jimbo Wales had something to say about this topic. [1] -- SteveMcCluskey 15:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I don't think adding additional quoatations would work in the case I have in mind, which already involves lengthy quotations from one aspect of the source and ignores the rest of it. Adding similar quotations to give a balanced picture would lead to a lengthy and unreadable article. Citing recognized experts from secondary sources seems to be a more promising approach. -- SteveMcCluskey 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
JA: Like any WP:Policy or Guideline whose fair and equal enforcement would depend on knowing the real-world identity and affiliations of each editor in question, the aspects of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:VER, and WP:SPAM that deal with advancing particular purposes are simply null and void. Just f'r'instance, nobody has any way of knowing for sure whether that editor or that cabal of evatars who are so insistent about imposing the POV of their favorite secondary source on an article is in fact the author or publisher of the work in question. What will be the result of attempting to enforce a WikiProvision of this type — and I use the word "vision" blindly? The editors who are honest enough to use their real names will be at the disadvantage of the editors, their agents, and their evatars who are not. WikiPar for the course, of course. Jon Awbrey 18:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
JA: Gwernol, I'll discuss this here because I'm really more concerned about the Big Three WP:Policies than I am about WP:SPAM at the moment, but the analogous SPAM policy has the advantage of providing a slightly more explicit model at the present time. You repeat the frequently heard assertion to the effect that that "none of the Wikipedia policies relies on knowing the true identity of the editors involved". But is that really so? Consider the new advisory recently added beneath the new article creation window:
Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam.
JA: To whom exactly is this notice addressed? That is, what are the intended denotations of the phrases "yourself", "your friends", "your company or products"? When the notice says "THIS MEANS YOU !!!", who is it talking to, exactly, if not the true identity of the person addressed? Without the assumption that a real person is being addressed the directive is pointless, meaningless, null, and void. Jon Awbrey 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
JA: Well, let me first ask a question then. Referring to the nutshell statement:
Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.
JA: I've been following some of the recent dispute on this page, if only out of the corner of one eye, and it seems like a lot of its has to do with the qualifying phrase "that serves to advance a position". This seems to imply that "any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas" that does not "serve to advance a position" is okay so far as this criterion goes. Is that a correct reading? Jon Awbrey 05:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"New analysis..." would, by definition, be Original Research. Just out of curiousity, how many more forums are you going to spam with "Completely Ridiculous and Absurd Postings" (CRAP)? -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
JA: Question 2. Then why is anybody worrying over what Doc Tropics is/are implying to be a redundant qualification? (Dear DTs, as many as it takes to get an intelligent answer.) Jon Awbrey 05:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
JA: SlimVirgin, I have read the WP:NOR policy, and all of the major policies and guidelines many times over and spent quite a bit of time in analyzing their logical and practical interactions. I have also observed how they are applied in actual practice, but that's another story. What you say confirms my reading of WP:NOR in general terms, but it still fails to explain the role of the "serves to advance a position" clause, which seems to stress a specific type of linkage between WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The way I read it, the clause is designed to constrain or weaken the rule of NOR, since it would require objectors to prove an "ulterior motive" behind "any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas" before excluding that contribution on the basis of NOR. Is that how you understand it? Jon Awbrey 16:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
JA: Dear Just zis Guy you know?, I probably ought to disclose the fact that it's really one of my sockpuppets who's leaving WP — it's just that he's too stupid to use a different nom-de-fume. Jon Awbrey 18:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
JA: SlimVirgin, I have already given that lecture about " WP:Policy is not an algorithm or an axiom system" several times myself, so let's consider it understood. But policies must have implications for action or else they are not really policies, and if too many people understand them as saying "Go left" when too many other people understand them as saying "Go right", then they have become incoherent in practice, no matter how pretty in principle. The stuff you say mostly makes sense to me, but I have to tell you that what you say is simply not widely understood that way out there in the WP trenches. Indeed, there is every likelihood that the very next WikiPundit who happens across this page will pipe up with a contrary reading in the next few hours. Now that is what I call a real problem with the interpretation and execution of WP:Policies. Unless there is some way that these policies can be explained more clearly and concretely, then I fear that the problem will persist.
JA: Now, I came in the door this time with a sense that yet another Wikipedia policy, specifically the reference to WP:SPAM that's cited in the new Article Creation Notice, simply cannot be fairly enforced with the means at the disposal of WP Management. There is an obvious analogy here with the WP:NOR clause about advancing a position, and so it seems to me that the same problem affects the judgment of compliance with NOR. If you can't tell when people are complying with a policy and when they are not, then that policy is de facto nullified, and the pretense of applying it only generates more bias than it corrects. Jon Awbrey 17:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
JA: I made a perfectly straightforward observation and asked a couple of simple questions. I don't know why I keep expecting the character of the responses to be any different, but pretty soon I won't. I think they call that learning. Jon Awbrey 21:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the time for a discussion to go into the archive here is very short, which breaks up discussions of any length.
But as far as reasonable inference goes, I agree with the idea and think some sort of reasonable inference rule is desperately needed.
I also think that any reasonable inference rule is going to directly go up against the example in the page. Deducing that someone is not a plagiarist by a particular dictionary definition uses only simple logic (the definition says a plagiarist is X, they didn't do X, the definition says they are not a plagiarist). It's going to take a lot of hair-splitting to decide that that's a bad inference yet saying "this person is female, this person is a lawyer, therefore this person is a female lawyer" is a good one.
I also think that the idea of allowing "observation" but not "synthesis" or "inference" to advance a position is useless. In the female lawyer example, the source says "this person is female" and "this person is a lawyer" and I'm using those two facts to *argue for the inference* "this person is a female lawyer". It's an inference, not an observation; it only seems like an observation because the type of inference we are using (A, B, therefore A AND B) is a relatively simple one that we don't think much about. In other words, any conclusion is a synthesis or inference. Ken Arromdee 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the reliable sources (defining plagiarism) are obviously relevant to the issue at hand (whether Jones committed plagiarism). SV, since you think that the example consitutes OR, how about adding some discussion of how to do it right: how to report the information from these relevant, reliable sources without committing OR. Ragout 04:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the word "novel" has multiple definitions, I've added a clarifying statement. Wjhonson 19:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I and other editors have encountered a user who appears to have taken this policy to an extreme compulsive level that seems to amount to vandalism. The user appears to want citations for what would be considered common knowledge to those knowledgeable in the field. They use the policy to delete material from an article and destroy it. For example, they might want a citation for the statement: "The sun rises in the east." They might want a citation for "The Internet (also known simply as the Net)..." (see Internet). If all articles were subjected to this extreme use of this policy, there would likely be few articles left. Can something be added to this article to address this?-- Who123 20:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The specific issue seems to be quiet at the moment (using "ACIM" as an abbreviation for "A Course in Miracles". One user seems to wish to apply WP policies to the extreme to destroy articles. In particular see Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles. Any input would be appreciated.-- Who123 14:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It is also meaningless. Now, why would 'ACIM' as an abbreviation of 'A Course in Miracles' have any place in the article? If there is some significance to its use, you need to source that information. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 23:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Let us look at today's featured article F-35_Lightning_II.
Although this article is well referenced there is not a reference for every word, sentence, and paragraph.
This user applying overzealous WP policies to this (and almost every other article) would edit the article this way and place an OR tag at the top.. Is this what WP wants editors to begin doing to all WP articles? This is an encyclopedia, not a doctoral dissertation.-- Who123 00:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:Are you referring to me? Do you have a specific complaint about my editing? I argue for the highest standards in referencing articles in Wikipedia because I believe it is necessary in order to bring Wikipedia to its full potential. I believe that relaxing the requirements for verification and citing sources will only weaken, and possibly destroy, Wikipedia. I do not seek to disrupt Wikipedia or any articles in it, but I do push for improvements to the project. If you don't see it that way, then I will leave you, and go work on some articles that need improvement. --
Donald Albury(
Talk) 01:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I am not talking about anyone here (that I have seen). I am talking about a new user that I believe is mis-using WP policies to attempt to delete or otherwise destroy reasonable articles. The two that I am familiar with are A_course_in_miracles and Endeavor_Academy. These were not written by me but concern a book and a spiritual movement that I have studied for 15-20 years. Hundreds of thousands of others have at some point or another been involved with this. I am 100% with you in verification and citing sources but it is difficult here.-- Who123 02:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Many of us have become very troubled at one user's application of WP:NOR and find it to violate the core goal of Wikipedia. On the ethnicity pages, an x-American is defined as an American of x-descent. Likewise, countless sources classify an x-American as such. This one user, however, argues that we only include a person in such a category if he or she has directly stated, "I am an x-American" or "I am x". In other words, if someone says, "I am of x descent/heritage/ancestry", or "My parent(s) is/are x" that we cannot include them in categories for x-Americans. In this user's policy, he has set his own definition as to the limited definition he wishes to see on the x-American lists, even going as far as taking out people who have discussed their x heritage at length, expressed an identification with it, and may even be of entirely one ethnicity. This user, however, now requires us to find a source for every person on every list, finding something that specifically identifies them as x-Americans, else we are forced to delete them. We believe this is the equivalent of saying that if someone is called a “female lawyer” that we cannot then put her in the “women lawyers” category as no source directly calls her a woman lawyer. We hold that, as stated in every available definition, an x-American is an American of x-descent. Such categories should not be undermined by one user’s contrary opinion which is based around a Wikipedia policy that the policy was not structured around. It is not original research to say that someone who identifies with his or her Italian roots is an Italian-American. This user, however, believes that it is, and in that case, it must be excluded, as the person is not calling him or herself an x-American. WP:NOR was not built around these inclusions. WP:NOR is, indeed, an important policy, but it should not apply here, as calling someone who is of a certain ethnicity and shows a strong identity to that ethnicity an x-American is not original research. For example, Milo Ventimiglia once discussed in an interview how he got his Italian temper from his father who is from Sicily, yet this user refuses to let us include him as an Italian or Sicilian-American. This user argues that we could classify Ventimiglia’s father as such, but not Ventimiglia. Likewise, Emeril Lagasse has discussed how he is of half Portuguese and half French descent, as well as the large role his heritage has played in his cooking, but this user refuses to let us classify him as a French or Portuguese-American, saying that those would only be good sources for citing Emeril’s parents. Should a person who states his or her heritage, expresses a strong identity to his or her heritage, and has parents from whichever country be defined as an x-American, or should we merely go with someone directly stating, “I am x” or “I am an x-American”, even though every definition available directly states that an x-American is an American of x-descent. Please express your viewpoints below. We had originally taken a poll here [2], but been told to move the discussion to the WP:NOR page. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Michael 02:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I completely agree. I've used the woman example, too. You cannot deny what is fact. If a woman lawyer says she doesn't identify as a "woman lawyer", we don't remove her fromthe category. It's fact, not what someone feels. Michael 04:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Stop saying personal, for goodness sake, and don't act so helpess (i.e. "I don't know what to do!" the horror of not being able to include someone with an X great-grandparent in the X-American category! ) . I have several top editors who have worked on this who agree with me. No, you may not make the inference that because someone has an Irish great-great-grandparent, they are automatically Irisih-American. That is your opinion and Wikipedia can only express it if a reliable source expresses it on that person. This is why we have the "Plagarism" example. Just because something fits the definition of plagarism or not plagarism, it does not mean we may call it that unless a reliable source called it that first. It is so incredibly simple. And no, please don't pull the "redefining definition" stuff. There is no redefining of anything, or else you're saying that by not allowing to include "not plagarism" if it doesn't fit the definition of plagarism we are redefining the definition of plagarism. We quote the definition of a term from reliable sources, and then we include those people that the sources have specifically said may be described with that term. Self-identification is definitely part of X-American. Of course it is. Otherwise you're saying that there isn't a single American out there who isn't an X-American. But if a good source calls someone X-American, that is fine too. This "simple inference" thing is easily disputed here. Because, of course, let's say someone is 1/128th X. Would anyone classify them as X-American? Of course not, not even Michael would. How about 1/64th? 1/32? 1/16? 1/4? Yes? You like 1/4? If you said "yes" to any of the above, then that's your opinion. That's precisely the flaw here. Drawing the line at any of the above "ethnic limits" is the opinion of whichever Wikipedia editor does it. 1/2 is reasonable to me, 1/4 is reasonable to Michael, someone else may want to draw the line at 1/64. Someone more insane may not want to draw any line at all. This is why we are not allowed to make any of "logical inferences" of our own, considering any "logical inference" here is the opinion of the Wikipedia editor who made it, and that should be kept out of Wikipedia. No one here could possibly explain to me the difference between X-American and the Plagarism example we so nicely have planted on this page. So I repeat - Wikipedia reports the definition of a term from a reliable source, and then it may report those people that reliable sources have said fit that term. We do not report people who in our opinion fit the term. Now, is this turning into another 5-day discussion full of phrase repeating by each side? I really don't have the time. I propose that any reponse to this post protesting it begin with a nice and detailed explanation of how the NOR policy applies to plagarism but does not apply to this. Mad Jack 06:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
We have found sources-sources that you will not accept. Becuase something says someone was born to x-American parents or one says he or she is of x-descent, you say that does not make them an x-American. It's that simple. We do not agree with this definition, and who, may I ask, is 1/256 a nationality and knows it? Michael 06:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I know your views. Let's hear from some others who may not have been on the ethnic pages. Michael 06:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That was what you used to do prior to going off this policy and reading it your own way. You actually were not the originator of the 50% policy, if I recall correctly. Michael 06:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Then I should go challenge everyone in the women lawyers category and say we have no sources that directly define them as women lawyers? Furthermore, who is 1/128 a nationality? Michael 07:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
What about the people on the talk pages that have sources discussing their heritage and whatnot but not to your own standards, such as Emeril and Madonna not being in the French list for the reason that they haven't made direct statement calling themselves French-Americans? Michael 07:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No source you would deem reliable says that. Michael 07:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Because he certainly qualifies for that category. I'm sure even you would agree. However, you refuse to accept the source that makes it quite clear that he is. Michael 07:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems that you are not going to answer either of my questions, and that is fine. Until you do, you simply have no argument. The questions were 1. How is X-American different from "Plagiarism" and 2. let's say you were allowed to make these inferences. The problem now becomes anyone can list whoever they want. Sure, most would agree listing people who are "half". Some may want to list anyone with any X ancestry. Some may want to limit it to people who are full. And of course, we are not allowed to do either. It is not a simple inference because, quite obviously, a simply inference would be something that is 100% agreed on and could not be debated, which this is simply not. Mad Jack 20:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly...and that was my point on plagiarism. If we change Wikipedia to be a mirror image of every other site, it loses its value. We, however, have the right to use what is commonly used as a definition. No one has said a source citing a woman as a "female attorney" would prevent categorization as a "woman lawyer". It's ridiculous to say such. Likewise, an x-American is said to be an American of x-descent-we have seen no definitions for exceptions. If you do not approve of it as it is, take that up on the "Italian-American" article, but the definition is quite clear and is commonly understood. Michael 23:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Saying that ethnic identification is a value judgement or POV appears to be your opinion. The mere fact that someone says "I don't want to be considered as Italian" is irrelevant. This isn't the encyclopaedia of what Madonna wants people to think. So I wish people would stop using that argument as its entirely pointless. If a reliable source states that her Italian is a significant part of her life, then its entirely appropriate to put her in that classification. And again I have stressed many times, you should take this to the appropriate talk pages of those articles, not here. Wjhonson 02:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
He would also be under Portuguese-Americans for that reason, Jack. Don't be ridiculous. He is of French descent-the Portuguese ancestry is not considered. To be a French-American, nowehere does it say one must be fully that ethnicity. It's quite simple. If I were categorizing an actress of both film and television, she could go in both categories, as we do not say that the television actors category cannot include actors who are also film actors. That point makes no sense. Further, we cite encyclopedic information; what one merely idenitifies with is not encyclopedic, and you, Jack, cannot place a limit on the criteria when many of us find the criteria to be clear in saying that an x-American is an American of x-descent. You cannot rip that apart and then say that it may mean the person can only be of one ethnic background. Michael 04:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Just curious, why is it that the people who disagree with me are the ones who pursue long discussions with me, while those who agree with me just say they do and then never post on here again? This whole thing is really taking up too much time. Again, we do not match definitions to people we think match those definitions. That's why we have the plagiarism example. Yes and I am scoring that point very well, because obviously people who are 1/200-whatever should not and are not considered X-Americans, but if you use "certain" definitions some editors may say they are. We can not draw the line anyway. It's that simple. We can't have "List of French Americans - oh, btw, don't include anyone who has less than this X ancestry because 10 Wikipedia editors decided that's not sufficient to be X-American". Again, I don't see the motivation for this discussion. Look at List of Welsh-Americans and List of French Americans - perfectly fine lists sourced under Wiki policy. There is no reason to break NOR just so we can include a few more people in the lists. Mad Jack 19:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Jack, if you have a problem with the definition, take it up on the ethnicity pages. Go to each one. Tell me how the "Italian-American" article can say an American who is of Italian descent is an Italian-American if that's not allowed. One definition is stated. Either go edit each and every one of those to conform to your argument or change your mandate, because as it is, there is an immense discrepancy between your interpretation and what is stated as the definition. Michael 04:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have not asked for you to reiterate what you are saying. I understand it, but in no way do I agree with it. Michael 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
After reading this debate I must conclude that while Mad Jack may have a reasonable point to begin with, I find his use of instrumental rationalisation leads to an irrational outcome. Reason lies in finding a balance, not following logic to the extreme. IMO a too strict policy of deleting or omitting logical inferences leads to a dry, unreadable list of quotes instead of an encyclopaedia. -- Tchoutoye 07:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
As of now, we're not able to add someone who is half a nationality and expresses a strong connection to it. Further, Jack will allow information to be included if something directly calls the person x or an x-American. If someone says he or she is of x-descent, Jack won't allow it. Michael 01:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite clear on what the difference is between Original Research and Rephrasing or Reasoning something. My example is slightly obscure, but is the best I can come up with at the moment. If say, no-one anywhere had published something saying that the District Line had the most number of stations on the London Underground (this 'factoid' has been published, but for the sake of argument let's say that only the number of stations on each line had been published). Would it then be Original Research to look at a list of the number of stations on each line and say "The District Line has the most number of stations". To me this is similar to the "deductive reasoning" section above (which concerned deducing people's nationality), but this is a clearer case of deductive reasoning. Other cases I can think of include saying things like "team Y is the first team to have won trophy X by this scoreline since 1860". This sort of thing is verifiable, but if it hasn't been published elsewhere, the only way to verify it is for the reader to go and check various lists and see if this is true. So where is the line drawn between rephrasing and representing a set of facts and maybe adding some obvious deductive reasoning, and this process becoming Original Research? A similar process would be seen for the process of rewriting and rephrasing things from a source. Where is the line drawn between summarising several sources (which is one of the prime purposes of a tertiary source like an encyclopedia), and synthesising those sources in such a way that (maybe accidentally) new connections and insights are revealed about the topic? I've also raised this at the Village Pump (policy) section. Carcharoth 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That's great. Thanks. I'll point people to this discussion, or come back with more examples if the need arises. Carcharoth 09:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
How does this policy affect sections of articles discussing interpretations of poems, novels, and the like? For example, would it be allowable to write something like "Others have countered that the second stanza alludes not to the German bombings of Exeter but instead to the actions of a serial killer active in the city at the time" and then cite a selection of sources advocating this position, even if those sources were self-published? As the article will only claims the existence of this alternative interpretation (and will not claim greater authority for it), would the use of self-published sources be appropriate - after all, the existence of several documents detailing an interpretation does seem to be reliable evidence for the existence of that interpretation? -- Safalra 19:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Recent discussion has frequently mentioned the WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. The example says that one shouldn't take information from two reputable sources, Chicago Manual of Style and Harvard's student writing manual, to contest a conclusion in a (made-up) reputable source, Smith (the conclusion being that Jones committed plagiarism). Since editors aren't supposed to do original research, it stands to reason that an editor shouldn't contest a reputable source through his own reasoning, but rather, should find another reputable source to contest the conclusion.
The problem illustrated by the example is that one source, Smith, says flatly that Jones committed plagiarism. The two others do not make a flat statement that Jones did not commit plagiarism, instead, they provide some general information about how to cite sources which might or might not apply to the Jones case; it requires considerable interpretation and reasoning by the editor to conclude that the Chicago manual and the writing manual support the idea that Jones didn't plagiarize.
The discussion on the talk page sometimes seems to be claiming that the plagarism example shows that one should not make simple uncontested conclusions; I don't think that's what the example means. I think the example means editors shouldn't try to contest a reputable source through their own reasoning.
Gerry Ashton 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Some types of information are just not going to be published anywhere, but are important to explaining ideas in an article.
For example, look at the Emergent Gameplay article (probably a poor article as it stands, I know). In the section on examples of emergent gameplay, these will seldom to never be published anywhere and so by this "No Original Research" policy would not be able to be included. However these examples are important for conveying to the reader what emergent gameplay is.
There should be some strict guidelines describeing exceptions to this policy, such as:
Exceptions to the No Original Research Policy are allowed if:
Further, exception to this policy are already a de facto part of wikipedia. A sizeable percentage of wikipedia would be gone if the policy were enforced consistantly across wikipedia.
- AbstractClass 21:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I propose changing
This is even shorter than the original version. Does it capture what we are trying to say? (The first "we" could be replaced by "editors", if desired.) Precis 07:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You CANNOT delete a view from a published source based on original research. That would violate NPOV. All verifiable views can and should be included in Wikipedia regardless of whether an editor agrees or disagrees. Period. user:slrubenstein
You CANNOT omit a view from a published source based on original research. That would violate NPOV. All verifiable views can and should be included in Wikipedia regardless of whether an editor agrees or disagrees. Period. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Imagine Police Chief Smith of Metropolis holds a sparsely attended press conference to announce this year's crime statistics. His exact words are "Last year we had 33 violent crimes. This year we had 149 violent crimes". A wikipedian is present at this press conference and decides to add this to the article on Metropolis. Would it violate NOR to write:
Why or why not? - O^O
The Wikipedian at the press conference would need a published source for the WP-report on crime. Basing the report solely on personal recollection of the press conference is original research. Precis 21:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source. I rest my case. Precis 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Some statements made at sparsely attended press conferences are unpublished. And this statement was one of them; that's why personal recollection was necessary. Precis 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Correct, and one can just as rightly say "Personal recollections of unpublished statements are OR per se, and so are not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia articles." Precis 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't mean that anything "not verifiable is automatically original research". Something not verifiable is simply not verifiable, that means, you cannot tell if its a real source citation or not. It's ambivalent, its unclear. That's not the same as
WP:OR which is a clear statement.
Wjhonson 06:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The sparsely attended, unrecorded, news conference fails to qualify as a "published source", in my opinion, and thus referring to it violates WP:NOR. I would go further and say that it also violates WP:V because it would be too costly for most Wikipedians to do the verification. Here is a related example. A bookstore in Nepal owns a rare book, the only one of its kind in the world. You travel to Nepal to get a quote from this book for Wikipedia. You could claim that your quote was verifiable because anyone who wants can travel to Nepal to verify your quote. But I don't think most Wikipedians would agree that this constitutes verifiability. Precis 14:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Your example: "Metropolis experienced a 350% increase in violent crime" is not only original research, but also violated WP:NPOV. You could write: "According to Police Chief Smith of Metropolis, the city experienced a 350% increase in violent crime", and you could follow it by "... and this is disputed by statistics complied by Metropolis' Bureau of statistics, which reports an increase of 120%". Describe the viewpoints, without asserting them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone object to replacing
by
If so, why? (Both have 11 words.) Precis 22:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It may seem that both phrases say exactly the same thing. But while the second one looks at two factors and prioritizes, the first one might leave the impression that verifiability is the only game in town. Is that really what we want to say? When I decide on the various points of view to include in an article, verifiability is my top priority, but I also strive to paint an accurate picture. Verifiability and truth are not mutually exclusive. Precis 07:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Eloquently put. My sentiments exactly. And the proposed new wording emphasizes that verifiability always gets priority over truth. But unlike the current wording, it won't leave anyone with the impression that we are unconcerned with building a WP that "accurately reflects human knowledge". Precis 11:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I liked the language there and borrowed it. I make no claims to originality. Precis 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. And for that reason, when I make the change, nobody will take the trouble to revert. (Just kidding--I'll drop the issue, for lack of consensus.) Precis 20:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses NO such definition as your POV "published to the broad, general public". Be advised that wikipedia is NOT a forum for you to promote your original research.-- Fahrenheit451 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No, publish does not mean "to the general public" in the common english dictionary. It does only in your POV. Your viewpoint is unfortunately very fixed. I never stated, "distributed to a membership", rather you have falsely accused me of saying that. Knock it off, Terryeo.-- Fahrenheit451 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source. I rest my case. Precis 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think truth should be at least as important as verifiability. Can someone please explain to me the purpose behind ignoring the truth. 01001 03:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, you are again attempting to promote your POV definition of the word "publish". Wikipedia does deal with published information. Please stop interjecting your own definitions as if they were common english ones. -- Fahrenheit451 17:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
And "public" is a group of people who share a common interest. I would suggest you look up the terms in the dictionary, but it appears to me that you are not dealing in good faith, and would not sincerely take my advice. -- Fahrenheit451 20:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm looking for some help. Over on the Moscow Metro talk page we're trying to pick one of two tables for inclusion in the article listing the lines of the Moscow Metro. We currently have two proposals. One of the editors feels that the second proposal constitutes original research. Please let us know if this is the case. I realize that this sounds ridiculous, but it's true. I asked him to back up his position, but he didn't really answer properly. It seems that he's simply using NOR as an excuse to prevent the inclusion of the second table. Let us know if he's correct in his accusations.— lensovet– talk – 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I used to live in Duckburg. I'm going to write an article describing the statues there. Next to an oak tree in the center of town is a giant statue of Lenin. Well, hmmm, maybe it was Stalin, I'm not sure. Come to think of it, the tree might have been a maple. Oh well, I'll just put down that there is a statue of Lenin next to a large oak tree. If I'm wrong, someone from Duckburg will undoubtedly read my article in the next year or two and correct me. Precis 13:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." Are there any AfD precedents pertaining to this that would help in the interpretation of that policy at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States health reform 1912-1920? Thanks! Medtopic 07:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty with the concept of "self-published". Exactly what does it entail?
It is unlikely that an author would be invited to write a book about a subject by a publisher. Rather an author writes a book on a certain topic and then tries to find someone willing to publish it. I thus guess the policy refers to the presence of absence of a publisher? Or does it refer to the quality of the publishing firm? If it is the latter then it is quite a slippery policy. How are publishing houses graded into acceptable and not acceptable?
I know of a Swedish reporter who wrote a book so critical of the Swedish banking family, the Wallenbergs, that he could not find anyone publisher who dared publish him. He then chose to publish his unedited manuscript on the internet for free. I guess that example would constitute self published. But if he had found a publisher, what criteria would the publisher have to meet to label the author "self-published"?
For example, are the authors published by this publishing house "self-published", or admissible as sources in wikipedia? Algora Publishing -- Stor stark7 Talk 15:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, what does published "to the general public" mean? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: 'Nuff said. Jon Awbrey 06:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: The point of the remark is that the concept of publication is about as well understood as it's going to get, and is certainly not helped by tautological additions like "published to the general public". Publication itself does not bear the entire weight of the criterion in question, since there are also the qualifications of reliability and reputation to be taken into account. In this respect, circulation does not substitute for credibility. Jon Awbrey 06:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Best to stick with the way that dictionaries and scholars normally use these words. No good will come of trying to write specific circulation numbers, much less specific distribution histories into the definition. Many journals have small print runs. The fact that a work is printed and can turn up in a library means that it's public. A lot of scholarship is based on sources that are rarer than that in their initial publications. Jon Awbrey 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I like JA's economy of language, but if he'll permit a bit of inflation, I'd say "published=made publicly accessible", to rule out unrecorded speeches and broadcasts. Precis 06:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm highly offended by SV's last line :-D. Now to the point. Since SV won't answer the question, I'll answer it myself with a simple syllogism.
Most of us are unwilling to accept this conclusion , so we cannot accept the initial premise either. In short, the answer to my question is NO! That's why I brought accessibility into the picture. SV's point about notability is simply wrong. I doubt if all of Rachmaninoff's unrecorded public concerts can be called non-noteable. Noteability isn't always a prerequisite for citations anyway. An organization is allowed to use non-notable published sources in an article about itself.
P.S. "publicly accessible" does not mean "easily accessible". I'm fully aware that some published items are only available at great expense. I'm also aware that there some previously published works are now completely inaccessible. Hence my definition isn't perfect, if you're of the school that says "once published, always published". Precis 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
No, published does NOT mean "distributed to the public". That is nonsense. A good couter-example is a website. That is not distributed, but rather made accessible. "Public" is a group of individuals who share a common interest, like english-speaking people, stamp collectors, software developers, golfers, etc. -- Fahrenheit451 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hurts my eyes to read such a tortuous sentence. Wjhonson 06:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: It's been rewritten since Wjhonson's comment. Bad semicolon fixed and split into two sentences. Jon Awbrey 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Reliable, reputable published sources must always be publicly accessible. I think most everyone here would agree. Are they publicly accessible by virtue of being published? (There is disagreement here--some say that the concepts "published" and "accessible" are not that closely related.) Are they publicly accessible by virtue of being reliable? (There is disagreement here too--some say that the concepts "reliable" and "accessible" are not that closely related.) Are they publicly accessible by virtue of being both reliable and published in conjunction? Here I'm guessing that the consensus is YES. If so, it wouldn't hurt to make this holistic interpretation clear on the main pages. (Note: "publicly accessible" doesn't necessarily mean "easily accessible"). Precis 10:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is a specific circumstance. If we don't accept that accessibility is built into the phrase "reputable reliable published source", then we are faced with the absurd and embarrassing situation where the synopsis of the Verifiability policy at WP:V has little or nothing to do with verifiability. If you disagree, go to the three-point policy section on that page and tell me where accessibility (the cornerstone of verifiability) is mentioned. If we don't require accessibility in that Policy section, how can we say this is a policy about verifiability? Can editors verify something that is inaccessible? Thanks. 13:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I am having a problem with not being able to source a common knowledge and widely accepted opinion, which a user wants to remove because there is no source, even though he agrees it is accurate and factual. It is related to the section Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition#1911 Britannica in the 21st century - and talk discussion Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition#Original research. User:John Kenney is saying that because there is no source for the errors in the EB1911, they should be removed from the article. The errors in EB1911 are self-evident and clear and factual and quoted. Do we really need a third party to "confirm" the errors before they can included in Wikipedia? How do we resolve this? Are we not allowed to say that EB1911 has problems as a 100 year old source? This seems so self-evident and supportable by quotes from EB1911. And I've looked, and have not been able to find a recent critical review of EB1911. -- Stbalbach 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: This is a generic problem in Wikipedia, and it betrays a number of places where the policies are not written as well as they might be. Outside of here, it is generally understood that we are concerned with grounded research, and that audit trails can ground out in several different ways besides an explicit citation. Common knowledge and common sense are some of those common grounds, but it's notoriously difficult to give a rule to common sense. Have to break here, will get back to it later. Jon Awbrey 19:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Oh, is that all. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and the statements in it do not have to be treated with that kind of awe. The burden of verifiability remains on the one who wishes to retain the statement, and it can be deleted if it cannot be verified independently. Another alternative is simply to cite the old curioisity sop verbatim as "blah-blah" (EB 1911), and let the reader judge. Most folks will avoid the absurdity of that unless it's a really amusing absurdity. Jon Awbrey 21:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Discussion below moved from user talk page. Jon Awbrey 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
At WP:NOR one of your recent edit summaries stated: 22:08, 31 July 2006 Jon Awbrey (Talk | contribs) (revert solecism). Did you mean the edit you reverted was:
JA: Sorry for the ambiguity. I was referring to the tautological aspects of "publish to the public", and so was using solecism in the sense of a defective bit of logic, in particular, a qualification posing as information that conveys in fact no additional information. For example, the unabridged Webster gives: "a theory, situation, act, etc., not consonant with logic, circumstances, known facts, or the like". Jon Awbrey 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: My general sense here is that you are making a mistake very similar to that of writing too specific a patent or policy, in that every clause you add only magnifies and multiplies the loopholes. We are not charged to create a novel definition of publication here — indeed we are proscribed from doing so. Jon Awbrey 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, your statement "published to the broad, general public, as any dictionary will tell you the common use of the term provides," is an outright falsehood. That is your definition that represents your POV. Publication is always done to a public, that is, a group of people who share a common interest, be they english speaking, knitting hobbyists, or bicyclists. Your definition is rather useless and unrealistic.-- Fahrenheit451 20:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Text below moved from my user talk page, as I'm only here off and on anymore, and stuff on my talk page is likely to lose all connection with relevant context. Jon Awbrey 03:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: No, a tautology is not an inconsistency. A tautology is simply not informative, as published already means made public, and that's all she wrote as far as publication goes. Jon Awbrey 03:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, please stop lying about my discussion statements. I never stated that distributed information was published. You falsely accuse me of that. I ask you to immediately stop spouting lies in our discussions.-- Fahrenheit451 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
A good example for purposes of illustration. The word "publish" in any dictionary will present published as being to the broad, genearal public because it arises from the word "to the public", that is, to everyone (ideally). We have gone around and around for a long time about verifying distributed information. But that isn't the point at all, the point it, such information is unpublished until it becomes published. When it is published (by whatever method) then it can be included into Wikipedia, but not before. This is what places Wikipeda above an expose' newspaper because Wikipedia only deals in previously published to the general public information. And as soon as soon as the public has it from a reliable source, *BAM*, it can be included in wikipedia. Terryeo 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The big problem with your argument Terryeo, is that the "general public" is a general concept and does not identify a who. Those who publish, and I speak from firsthand experience, target one or more groups of people who share a common interest as a means to make information public. It can be english-speaking people, spanish-speaking people, coin collectors, joggers. Your "broad, general public" argument, quite frankly, is contrived nonsense. -- Fahrenheit451 20:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, now you have gone from "published to the public" to this abstract generality of "broad, general public". I object to your lying about what I have presented in these discussions and you have not included any links because you have nothing factual to link. Reminds me of the Office of Special Affairs ad-hominem attack tactic. I suggest you knock it off.-- Fahrenheit451 04:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Your syllogism was a tautology, and therefore didn't result in a meaningful conclusion, Precis, but nice try. I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's private-language argument here. There is no such thing as a private language, he argued, because all languages require an element of publicity and public agreement e.g. that "table" means a thing with legs that you can rest other things on, and that it will mean this to all native English speakers. You confirm this by interacting with them around the issue of tables, and sure enough, they seem to be using the word the way you're using it, so all is well: you know you're speaking a language, because the public is confirming that they know what you're saying, and also that you're using the term consistently. This discussion is heading along the same lines. We need public affirmation of some kind before publication can be said to have taken place. We need an entry on Amazon, or a mention in The Times (or local paper), or a letter to the editor, or a transcript of a tape, a copy of a broadcast, and so on. It has to be out there in some form, not just a broadcast that maybe no one even heard, or if they did, they didn't themselves publish their thoughts about it. So maybe there was a sense in which it was made public, but that sense was ephemeral, like me trying to teach myself a private language: that S means sensations like the one I feel in my leg now, and that S1 means sensations like the one I feel now, where I can only hope (but can never know) that the next time I use S or S1, I will use them correctly — because there is no one out there I can share them with, and therefore no one who can tell me if I'm wrong. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Argueablely, the official program was distributed to a select, private audience which had purchased tickets. Should a publisher then put together a book about the Giants and include a portion of that program, distributing it to the general public, it would become published. Terryeo 13:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No, published means to make public. Public being a group of persons who share a common interest. In your example the group of persons are those interested in baseball. The publication may reach those who are not, but the intended target of the publication would be reached. -- Fahrenheit451 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The logic is curious to me for another reason. I don't understand how there is a difference in intent. The intended audience for the live game and for the stack of programs is the same: the subset of the public willing to pay the price to enter the stadium. Precis 21:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. Yes, the program has ads in it, but the stadium is also plastered with ads, so there is no difference there either. Precis 21:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If I had a public key for Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, or Donald Trump that my bank signed, then I think I would be able to trust their material as verbatim. But perhaps the key should also bear their e-mail address or web site, just in case any kids bear those legal names.
And, I guess the verbatim and complete material might go in wikiquote, just in case you wanted to check the signature, yourself, to ensure that you were talking to the same Elvis.
[11] 216.234.170.66 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Costello, that is.
Hi.
I'm wondering about this "no original research" policy, specifically, would the following scenario be against the policy?:
1. Person publishes their original research in a peer-reviewed journal.
2. Research passes 5 years of vigorous scrutiny.
3. Person writes an article here about their own research, BUT they ONLY include the ideas that were in the published, peer-reviewed journal, and reference it.
If this is against the policy, then I think this needs to become an exception because the whole point has to do with peer review and verifiability. If it gets peer review and the peer-reviewed content is all that is mentioned in the article, it shouldn't matter if the research is technically "original" (ie from the same person as the author of the article) or not. If it _doesn't_ go against the policy, perhaps this should be made clear.
-- 70.101.146.206 21:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The editors of the Bob Dylan article are arguing that their prose does not violate OR and some others have nominated it to FAR. This desparately needs some neutral, third-party eyes to step in here. Of interest too is the talk page for the article. I'm not sure I'm expert enough to step in myself. I'd always assumed "brilliant prose" still needed to be backed up by sources - I can't say something's the greatest thing since slice bread unless a reputable and verifiable source has made that claim, right? plange 23:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Based on Gerry Ashton's definition, I propose this definition of publish: "Making information available to the interested public without active restrictions (lawful non-disclosure agreements, statutory confidentiality), other than a means of exchange (barter, fees) or a level of knowledge (pre-requisites)."-- Fahrenheit451 02:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
No wheel reinventing intended. I think this discussion arises out of a need for a definition that is clear for editing purposes and conforms with the dictionary definitions.-- Fahrenheit451 03:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is an alternate proposal, followed by my rationale.
Rationale: When Wikipedia policy refers to "published", verifiability is a necessary condition, with no exceptions. Jossi's idea to combine "published" and "reputable" is tenable, except on the rare occasions when Wikipedians want an understanding of "published" independent of reputability, for example, when an organization uses a self-published source in an article about itself. Precis 08:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Rationale: "to the general public", rather than "public" can prevent misunderstandings. Including "Reliable way" is again, almost redundant. But reliability, stability, is important to Wikipedia. Terryeo 16:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
And "general public" is an abstract, general term which has nothing to do with publishing. The target of publishing is "a group of people who share a common interest" which is not a mob, or the masses, or everybody.-- Fahrenheit451 22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Not true, the common interest could be a common language and english-speaking people are a public.-- Fahrenheit451 23:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Would other editors please comment on this issue? Terryeo 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I like the evolution of Gerry Ashton's definition of publish:"To make available in fixed form (i.e. paper, CD, web page) to the interested public without active restrictions (i.e. non-disclosure agreements), except non-free publishers may apply restrictions to assure payment." I think this is the most workable definition proffered thusfar.-- Fahrenheit451 23:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Publication implies fixed form. Terryeo, you seem to believe that watching Dumbo do tricks at the circus is a publication, and it is not, it is a performance. A recording of the performance made available to attendees would be a publication. On the matter of distribution, the consensus seems to be that a group of interested persons is the intended public of a publication. -- Fahrenheit451 02:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that a definition of "publish" that deviates from the common definition would be a no-no. Ashton's proposed wording is not based on that common understanding. I am observing that editors are trying to "fix" policy so that they can use or otherwise challenge a source in articles they are involved with. That may be obfuscating their ability to make proposals that may improve the current wording. I would argue that anybody that comes to check Wikipedia, would have a very simple and direct understanding of what "published" means and what a "reliable source" means. We already have enough work in explaining to newbies and the world what NPOV is, and we do not need to say "but wait: we also define 'published' very differently than you do". Let's keep it simple, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, I don't see that adding a definition of publish will make matters worse for wikipedians. On the contrary, I think it could bring clarity to the editing process. Yes, it should not be different than the dictionary definition, rather it should be similar, but refined for our editing purposes.-- Fahrenheit451 02:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, please knock off your lying nonsense. I never stated "published to a public" You stated that. Other editors have already unfavorably commented on your rather unrealistic and shortsighted definition of publish. -- Fahrenheit451 04:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, please sign your posts. And stop the lying, you did say everyone: "Normally, people pay to attend a baseball game, so I used that illustration. But the cost is not the significant factor I attempted to communicate. The idea of information being distributed to a selected group of individuals does not constitute "published". Instead, "published" means "to the public" and "the public" is not a specific group of persons, but everyone, anyone, without regard to whether they attend a baseball game or stay home or go to the beach. Terryeo 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)" and "Public" is sometimes used to refer to and seperate from consideration, certain subgroups of people. But the base from which the word springs, its derivation is "people" without any qualification whatsoever. [9]. Everyone, all mankind. "Public" would not include animals nor plants nor rocks nor trees, but instead, "people". When a dictionary states, "published to the public", with no modifier to the word "public" the dictionary means, "published to all of the public", i.e. although not every individual person receives a copy, the target published to is "everyone". Terryeo 08:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)" and "F451, I simply don't see how you can possibly consider "published to a public" to be a definition at all of published ! The word "public" means "poeple", that is people without any qualifications or preselection. i.e. everyone, i.e., the common public, i.e., the general public. I simply don't understand why you don't get what (I think) everyone else understands "publish" to mean. Terryeo 02:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)" -- Fahrenheit451 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I used a word to make clear an idea. I used "everyone". I am attempting to spell out a difference.
And your statement is ridiculous: There are hunting magazines, fly-fishing magazines, mountain bike magazines, golfing magazines, etc. that cater to specific groups of people who share a common interest. Publishing to a public occurs all the time, therefore your conclusion is utter nonsense.-- Fahrenheit451 06:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
All right, then just name us one publication that is intended for "the public".-- Fahrenheit451 06:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I asked you to name one publication that is intended for "the public" and you did NOT do that, instead you listed a link to definitions you selected. Again, if you cannot provide the name of a publication that is intended for "the public" as you define, your argument is invalid.-- Fahrenheit451 12:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
To fix your continuous problem between "the" and "a", I would suggest that you consider whether: "Anyone who has the means, may obtain a copy from the publisher, without undue interference." Or language to that affect. Wjhonson 19:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
That definition is o.k. I dn't know whether you were addressing me or not, but the definite versus indefinite article controversy is long over for me. I guess Terryeo is still fighting that battle.-- Fahrenheit451 20:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Please comment on this: "Publish: To make available in documented form (e.g. paper, CD, web page) to the interested public without active restrictions (e.g. non-disclosure agreements), with the exception that non-free publishers may apply restrictions to ensure payment for a publication." -- Fahrenheit451 05:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC) revisions in script-- Fahrenheit451 13:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
When you contradict yourself, that makes your argument invalid. You insist that a game played in front of people within a stadium is "published". Yet you say (emphasis mine)
That's a flat-out contradiction. You can try to explain yourself by bringing in other issues, such as publisher's intent, but it's too late: the contradictory statement has already been made. Note: It is your view that a live football game is published but the half-time band entertainment is not, even though both are performed before the same public (those in the stadium). To avoid further contradictory statements, it may help to specify the other criteria you use in your definition (publisher's intent, public expectation, or whatever). Precis 09:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. You state that if the distribution of material is constrained "in any manner whatsoever" then you wouldn't consider it "published". Yet you consider a live football game published even though the publisher is imposing a constraint: only people in the stadium get to watch the game. So you contradict yourself once again. (It is irrelevant that tickets are available to the general public. If you are too sick to go to the stadium, you don't get to watch the game, whether you have season tickets or not.) Precis 11:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what on earth is going on here. An "interested public" is self-selected. A magazine, or a journal, or a book is published to be purchased and read by whoever in the public is interested in it. Thus, the interested public. People who are not interested will, by definition, not buy it, because they are not interested. I suppose one can come up with silly exceptions, like "the guy who catches part of a movie in an electronics store," but that's just silly and not an exception which really warrants changing the definition. That things are published for the interested public is more or less a tautology, and I can't for the life of me understand why it is controversial. Also, everyone should remember that etymology is not destiny. Just because a word derives from a particular Latin root does not mean that its meaning is forever cicrcumscribed by the meaning of that Latin word. Beyond that, though, I've got some doubts about Gerry Ashton's definition - "except non-free publishers may apply restrictions to assure payment" is both awkward and not grammatically correct, if I'm not mistaken. It would at least need a "that" after except to be grammatically right, but even so it's an awkward and artificial way of saying things. I'm also somewhat concerned about the mention of "web pages." That makes for a pretty broad definition of "published," which would include, say, every blog in the world. Why so much emphasis on "published sources" in this extremely broad sense, when what really matters is reputable published sources? john k 12:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Point well taken, but "reputable" is something other than "published". Sure, web pages are usually published.-- Fahrenheit451 13:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
\
I don't see anything wrong with the grammar there. According to Oxford exchange means: "an act of giving one thing and receiving another (esp. of the same type or value) in return." This is in response to the editor who brought up the point of requiring completion of a survey. We could fall back to "payment", it's just that there will be some exceptions to the definition. I guess that's o.k.--
Fahrenheit451 20:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
When asked on two occasions in these discussions to provide examples of actual publications that fit his definition of publish, he did not do so. -- Fahrenheit451 13:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Terryeo has been unable to provide Examples of publications that fit his definition of published. So, just assuming Terryeo is really using Webster's Dictionary as an example of his definition of published, we find that Webster's is written in english, this excludes all non-english literates. Thus, Webster's is published to a group of people who share a common interest, the english language. It is also not published with distribution to those who do not want it, but use another, like Oxford. That is not "everyone". I think it can be stated that Terryeo's arguments for his definition have been demolished.-- Fahrenheit451 18:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Jossi and BTfromLA are right. 'Published,' 'reliable source,' and 'original research' have all been sufficiently defined at Wikipedia for a very long time; recent attempts here to redefine these terms are fatally flawed and will never pass muster and make into canon. FeloniousMonk 04:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, please stop misinforming the editors in this discussion. The student receives a copy of the transcript and gets to keep it. So, it is published, although to a small public. Here is an image link to a promotional leaflet for the course, which is published by the way [15] and [16]-- Fahrenheit451 02:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
So this whole thing is part of a dispute about scientology? Tough cases make bad law. We shouldn't use such a dispute as a basis for what our definition of whether something has been "published" is. As far as I can tell, there is no major dispute about what "published" means, and the dispute is not one which ought to be resolved by refining our definition of "published," but rather by the normal methods of WP:V. If Fahrenheit's statements can be verified by sources available to other people, it is acceptable. If not, it isn't, even if it's true. john k 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
(unindent) The most recent phase of this discussion started when User:Donald Albury that the current policy is adequate as it stands. There were then posts from seven editors agreeing that if a distributor imposes substantial restrictions on who can receive a work, the work is not verifiable for Wikipedia purposes, and that current policies and guidelines are sufficient to deal with any editor who cites such material in Wikipedia. I've always been ambivalent about whether there should be a policy or guideline change, but I've been firmly opposed to the wrong changes. The personal experiences that make this an issue for me have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with quasi-published information in the electronic design software arena. I'm content to leave the policies and guidelines as they are. -- Gerry Ashton 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
To conclude this particular thread, Terryeo was unable to provide any real examples of a publication that fit his POV definition of "publish". His arguments for this definition were demolished. He then was allowed to change the subject and interject an attack on myself. That attack was dissapated and the status quo of "publish" remains. -- Fahrenheit451 09:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This lengthy discussion originated by Terryeo claiming that the word "published" means "published to the public" and "public" being some abstract generality as "everyone". The edit cited by Terryeo I let go because this published material is of rather restricted distribution so as to be difficult at present to verify. That is the simplicity of it. We don't need any further rumor-mongering from Terryeo about how this developed. I have no objection to ending this discussion. However, I think that we have not heard the last of this distorted POV definition. Dispute resolution process, here we come.-- Fahrenheit451 03:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In an effort to get to the finish line:
RESOLVED: There is no need for a Wikipedia-specific definition of the word "published."
Dear friends:
Forgive me for being obtuse, but I always thought that the better encyclopedias were composed of articles written by experts who did original research in determining what points to emphasize, what authorities had to say in the field and just what the article MEANT to the readers of the encyclopedia.
Encyclopedia articles are quite often signed, either with a full name or initials.
Obviously I can't argue against this established policy of Wikipedia, but I don't fully understand it, even though I try to follow it in my Wiki-editing and Wiki-writing. Every writer picks and chooses his material, so there is inherent "originality" in what he accomplishes.
Second point, this dictum ("no original research") is more honored in the breach than the observance. Click on "Random article" in the column at the left, and you will probably get a screenful of original research — or a screenful of words that very seldom are backed up by any sources. Just try it.
As an aside, I refer you to Jonathan Club, an article which I just completed and in which I attempted to source every fact. Well, I didn't succeed, because there are one or two sentences that are still unsourced and (gasp!) an interpretation of the material that surrounds them. If you can figure out a way to write the piece without the (very few) interpretations, I would be glad to hear them — or rather, see them.
I hope to hear from you on both of the above points.
Yours sincerely,
GeorgeLouis 07:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Friends, I know exactly what the rule is; the problem is that, carried to its logical conclusion, every single sentence would have to be sourced, and we all know that is just not happening and will not happen. Take this section from Yoyogi Park, for example:
What is now Yoyogi Park was the site of the first successful powered aircraft flight in Japan, on December 19, 1910, by Captain Yoshitoshi Tokugawa, following which it became an army parade ground.
Yeah, who said? No source. And the reference at the bottom of the article leads to a Web site in Japanese. Yet the article as a whole is a good contribution to WikiP if you don't read Japanese. None of the editors who have worked on it during the past two years have flagged it as unsourced. Should it be? Take a look at it and let me know. Thanks very much for your time. I appreciate your comments. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 05:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Precis, that is a very interesting page (in English, too), but it does not say anything about powered aircraft flights, Capt. Tokugawa or army parade grounds. As I mentioned above, you could click on any "Random article" and find similar unsourced material, so the stricture against "no original research" is really a hollow one. I really do not think most WikiP writers know HOW to credit their material within the body of their work (if they care to at all); college professors have struggled for decades to help students learn this technique, and I think most high school teachers have just given up.
Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
<<Something is not original research because it isn't sourced. Something is original research because it can't be sourced.>> This is probably this best distinction I have seen and perhaps should be added to the Original Research page, wherever that might be.
I think the distinction can also be made between an article that states "The speed of light is 186,000 miles an hour" (no source needed because it is common knowledge) and "The Ferrari was traveling 96 miles an hour when it hit the light pole, according to information taken from the onboard data recorder and quoted in the police report at www.malibucops.com/Ferrari.html" (source needed).
We can't go around needing a citation for "George Washington wore wooden false teeth," but we would need one for "Sammy Stutz, the drummer in Four Little Dood-Heads, carried a four-leaf clover for luck at each concert in months beginning with the letter J." It's really up to the article writer (and the editor) to be able to make a distinction between commonly known data that needn't be sourced and lesser-known data that should be sourced so that readers can look it up themselves if they are so minded. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 20:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think part of the confusion arises from the difference between the Wikipedia policy of 'NOR' and the academic usage of the phrase 'original research'. Furthermore I think it would be worth clarifying this point as I believe it is an important factor in discouraging many humanities academics from contributing to Wikipedia, as I have personally encountered a number who feel they do not understand how to adhere to NOR. The Wikipedia definition assesses individual words, sentences and statements to establish whether they can be traced to reputable sources. By contrast the academic definition looks at the piece as a whole to consider whether it makes, as a whole, an original contribution. In the humanities, and particularly in history, a piece of work can be 'original research' even when it advances no new interpretations or causal narrative whatsoever, but merely brings together bits of information which were previously uncollated. Historiography is partly the act of collation - and finding the information to include, and selecting what to exclude, may under certain circumstances be enough on its own to constitute 'original research' for academic purposes. The dividing line between a term paper and original research is not, contrary to popular opinion, always the use of unpublished sources, or even the advocacy of a new line of argument, but can also be the attempt to address a subject for the first time, even if all the sources used are other scholarly publications (I take this definition from the rules of my own university). Such collation of materials is what many Wikipedia articles have to do, since for many minor historical topics, it may be that no sustained discussion of the topic in question has ever been published, although there may be an adequate supply of published references to draw upon which address discrete aspects of a topic. Articles of this type are NOR in a Wikipedia sense, because the individual sentences can be sourced, but may feel to an academic like 'original research', albeit of a fairly simple kind, where the completed article makes an 'original contribution' by collating pre-existing knowledge. I would suggest including in the WP an explicit acknowledgment of the difference between the Wikipedia meaning of 'NOR' and the possible implications of the phrase for professional academics and graduate students, especially historians. I think this might help to bring more subject specialists into Wikipedia, ensuring that its historical articles conform to the highest scholarly standards. Happydemic 03:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I have been experiencing a need today to express similar thoughts to George, independently of you guys, and, I suspect, thousands of miles to your east. I've never really liked the sound of the NOR thing, it always sounded like navel-obsessed project anoraks making trouble for themselves. Recently I coined a couple of acronyms which I find necessary in my area of research - linguistics - put them on disambiguation pages, and nobody has objected. The thing I could prove is the need for them, and the fact that one of them has been used elsewhere (by myself!). I looked into the history of the policy on the article page, and at once understood. Yes, modern physics does have cranks with crackpot theories, common sense seems to tell you that, but perhaps the latter's not all that common. I think Wiki chair Jim Wales is a shrewd judge of these matters to highlight the problem, but to me, this should have resulted in giving him a stake in the modern physics debate, qualified or not, rather than a desire and a mission to persecute genuine original research. And there is a contradiction in the birth of the policy: surely Wales's perception that some physics theories were cranky, a perception shared by myself and no doubt many others, is itself original research - and none the worse for it!?
I think Precis hit a nail on the head, also: 'Just think of V, NPOV, and NOR as the Trinity.' Authoritarians tend to nurture, promote and protect rules uncritically out of all proportion to their humble provenance, till they become just like another kind of cult - we must watch out for this, not just the things we've been told to watch out for.
I'm with you, George - and for research and originality - yes, even in an online encyclopedia, with no immediate prospect of payment, recognition, or reward. -- Etaonsh 20:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I've created a new section - Proposal: State that "no original research" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia - for discussion of the wording I proposed above, which GeorgeLouis and BTfromLA appeared to support. Please have a look and accept or reject, or make suggestions for amendment. This wording does not address many of the issues raised in this discussion, but it does aim to clarify the question of information collation. Happydemic 17:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess that my main problem with the ban on "original research" is that it really seems too authoritarian and closed-minded. After all, the whole idea of wikipedia is to be *different* from paper encyclopedias, it isnt just a matter of it being on the internet, the whole spirit of the internet is open-mindedness and belief in the public's ability to sort things out on their own, *without* a god-like authority repressing everyone supposedly "to help them". Since anyone can easily edit any page, what is the big deal with original research? If somebody disagrees with it, or has a source that disargees, they can just write that into the article. I think that would be by far the more democratic and the greatly easier and much less power-driven way to deal with "original research". Unfortunately while the page on "No Original Research" pretends to be open-minded, it's clear from the comments of the wikipedia founder about the policy designed against "cranks" and "trolls" that its anything but open-minded - the fact is that these editors really do assume anything which is not "verifiable" from a "reliable" source is somehow false or crazy, and that only an insane person would ever post it. That really does seem the core assumption involved, an assumption which is very anti-thetical to the whole meaning of the internet, and to my mind, wikipedia as well. So to repeat, i really wish wikipedia would get rid of the ban on "original research" for many reasons, having to do first of all with the *very* fuzzy definition of "original research", it seems to be based on a very arbitrary and subjective point of view, secondly, the points made earlier by someone that you can easily point to examples of "original research" to some extent in all wikipedia articles, and thirdly the very vague nature of what is a "reliable" source. Fourthly, the solution is to just allow everyone to edit all the articles, that way if someone thinks some "original research" is erroneous they can just try to prove their point, this could lead to a constructive approach which over time, with many many users and many many attempts, would produce a way better article. Sometimes someone might have an idea which definitely does belong in an encyclopedia even if they dont necessasrily have access to multiple "reliable" sources. It is an errant assumption to think that the meaning of "reliable" can be known objectively. Thanks, thats all i had to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacking Lack ( talk • contribs)
Yes i was glad that the person at least tried to give me some tips or hints but i still think that my original point stands, just telling someone they need to "digest" is not really a good answer to their complex argumentation about something. Perhaps i was just wrong about what i thought wikipedia was, i really do enjoy reading the articles sometimes, and i have learned a lot from wikipedia and maybe you are right that the risk of crazy people is too great to permit "unverified claims" but it just seems so robotic and bland if all we are allowed to do is basically repeat what someone else has already said for our articles. It would seem that wikipedia-formation could almost be mechanized. Lacking Lack 07:54, 19 August 2006 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Exactly the same as the subject. Duke toaster 19:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This falls between OR and NPOV but I'm a bit concerned by historical articles where an editor cites selected passages from a primary source in order to present a particular opinion as to the topic of the primary source and the concerns of the author.
Does anyone have any ideas about how this policy might address that problem? -- SteveMcCluskey 15:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Just after finishing this, I found that Jimbo Wales had something to say about this topic. [1] -- SteveMcCluskey 15:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I don't think adding additional quoatations would work in the case I have in mind, which already involves lengthy quotations from one aspect of the source and ignores the rest of it. Adding similar quotations to give a balanced picture would lead to a lengthy and unreadable article. Citing recognized experts from secondary sources seems to be a more promising approach. -- SteveMcCluskey 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
JA: Like any WP:Policy or Guideline whose fair and equal enforcement would depend on knowing the real-world identity and affiliations of each editor in question, the aspects of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:VER, and WP:SPAM that deal with advancing particular purposes are simply null and void. Just f'r'instance, nobody has any way of knowing for sure whether that editor or that cabal of evatars who are so insistent about imposing the POV of their favorite secondary source on an article is in fact the author or publisher of the work in question. What will be the result of attempting to enforce a WikiProvision of this type — and I use the word "vision" blindly? The editors who are honest enough to use their real names will be at the disadvantage of the editors, their agents, and their evatars who are not. WikiPar for the course, of course. Jon Awbrey 18:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
JA: Gwernol, I'll discuss this here because I'm really more concerned about the Big Three WP:Policies than I am about WP:SPAM at the moment, but the analogous SPAM policy has the advantage of providing a slightly more explicit model at the present time. You repeat the frequently heard assertion to the effect that that "none of the Wikipedia policies relies on knowing the true identity of the editors involved". But is that really so? Consider the new advisory recently added beneath the new article creation window:
Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam.
JA: To whom exactly is this notice addressed? That is, what are the intended denotations of the phrases "yourself", "your friends", "your company or products"? When the notice says "THIS MEANS YOU !!!", who is it talking to, exactly, if not the true identity of the person addressed? Without the assumption that a real person is being addressed the directive is pointless, meaningless, null, and void. Jon Awbrey 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
JA: Well, let me first ask a question then. Referring to the nutshell statement:
Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.
JA: I've been following some of the recent dispute on this page, if only out of the corner of one eye, and it seems like a lot of its has to do with the qualifying phrase "that serves to advance a position". This seems to imply that "any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas" that does not "serve to advance a position" is okay so far as this criterion goes. Is that a correct reading? Jon Awbrey 05:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"New analysis..." would, by definition, be Original Research. Just out of curiousity, how many more forums are you going to spam with "Completely Ridiculous and Absurd Postings" (CRAP)? -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
JA: Question 2. Then why is anybody worrying over what Doc Tropics is/are implying to be a redundant qualification? (Dear DTs, as many as it takes to get an intelligent answer.) Jon Awbrey 05:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
JA: SlimVirgin, I have read the WP:NOR policy, and all of the major policies and guidelines many times over and spent quite a bit of time in analyzing their logical and practical interactions. I have also observed how they are applied in actual practice, but that's another story. What you say confirms my reading of WP:NOR in general terms, but it still fails to explain the role of the "serves to advance a position" clause, which seems to stress a specific type of linkage between WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The way I read it, the clause is designed to constrain or weaken the rule of NOR, since it would require objectors to prove an "ulterior motive" behind "any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas" before excluding that contribution on the basis of NOR. Is that how you understand it? Jon Awbrey 16:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
JA: Dear Just zis Guy you know?, I probably ought to disclose the fact that it's really one of my sockpuppets who's leaving WP — it's just that he's too stupid to use a different nom-de-fume. Jon Awbrey 18:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
JA: SlimVirgin, I have already given that lecture about " WP:Policy is not an algorithm or an axiom system" several times myself, so let's consider it understood. But policies must have implications for action or else they are not really policies, and if too many people understand them as saying "Go left" when too many other people understand them as saying "Go right", then they have become incoherent in practice, no matter how pretty in principle. The stuff you say mostly makes sense to me, but I have to tell you that what you say is simply not widely understood that way out there in the WP trenches. Indeed, there is every likelihood that the very next WikiPundit who happens across this page will pipe up with a contrary reading in the next few hours. Now that is what I call a real problem with the interpretation and execution of WP:Policies. Unless there is some way that these policies can be explained more clearly and concretely, then I fear that the problem will persist.
JA: Now, I came in the door this time with a sense that yet another Wikipedia policy, specifically the reference to WP:SPAM that's cited in the new Article Creation Notice, simply cannot be fairly enforced with the means at the disposal of WP Management. There is an obvious analogy here with the WP:NOR clause about advancing a position, and so it seems to me that the same problem affects the judgment of compliance with NOR. If you can't tell when people are complying with a policy and when they are not, then that policy is de facto nullified, and the pretense of applying it only generates more bias than it corrects. Jon Awbrey 17:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
JA: I made a perfectly straightforward observation and asked a couple of simple questions. I don't know why I keep expecting the character of the responses to be any different, but pretty soon I won't. I think they call that learning. Jon Awbrey 21:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the time for a discussion to go into the archive here is very short, which breaks up discussions of any length.
But as far as reasonable inference goes, I agree with the idea and think some sort of reasonable inference rule is desperately needed.
I also think that any reasonable inference rule is going to directly go up against the example in the page. Deducing that someone is not a plagiarist by a particular dictionary definition uses only simple logic (the definition says a plagiarist is X, they didn't do X, the definition says they are not a plagiarist). It's going to take a lot of hair-splitting to decide that that's a bad inference yet saying "this person is female, this person is a lawyer, therefore this person is a female lawyer" is a good one.
I also think that the idea of allowing "observation" but not "synthesis" or "inference" to advance a position is useless. In the female lawyer example, the source says "this person is female" and "this person is a lawyer" and I'm using those two facts to *argue for the inference* "this person is a female lawyer". It's an inference, not an observation; it only seems like an observation because the type of inference we are using (A, B, therefore A AND B) is a relatively simple one that we don't think much about. In other words, any conclusion is a synthesis or inference. Ken Arromdee 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the reliable sources (defining plagiarism) are obviously relevant to the issue at hand (whether Jones committed plagiarism). SV, since you think that the example consitutes OR, how about adding some discussion of how to do it right: how to report the information from these relevant, reliable sources without committing OR. Ragout 04:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the word "novel" has multiple definitions, I've added a clarifying statement. Wjhonson 19:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I and other editors have encountered a user who appears to have taken this policy to an extreme compulsive level that seems to amount to vandalism. The user appears to want citations for what would be considered common knowledge to those knowledgeable in the field. They use the policy to delete material from an article and destroy it. For example, they might want a citation for the statement: "The sun rises in the east." They might want a citation for "The Internet (also known simply as the Net)..." (see Internet). If all articles were subjected to this extreme use of this policy, there would likely be few articles left. Can something be added to this article to address this?-- Who123 20:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The specific issue seems to be quiet at the moment (using "ACIM" as an abbreviation for "A Course in Miracles". One user seems to wish to apply WP policies to the extreme to destroy articles. In particular see Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles. Any input would be appreciated.-- Who123 14:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It is also meaningless. Now, why would 'ACIM' as an abbreviation of 'A Course in Miracles' have any place in the article? If there is some significance to its use, you need to source that information. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 23:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Let us look at today's featured article F-35_Lightning_II.
Although this article is well referenced there is not a reference for every word, sentence, and paragraph.
This user applying overzealous WP policies to this (and almost every other article) would edit the article this way and place an OR tag at the top.. Is this what WP wants editors to begin doing to all WP articles? This is an encyclopedia, not a doctoral dissertation.-- Who123 00:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:Are you referring to me? Do you have a specific complaint about my editing? I argue for the highest standards in referencing articles in Wikipedia because I believe it is necessary in order to bring Wikipedia to its full potential. I believe that relaxing the requirements for verification and citing sources will only weaken, and possibly destroy, Wikipedia. I do not seek to disrupt Wikipedia or any articles in it, but I do push for improvements to the project. If you don't see it that way, then I will leave you, and go work on some articles that need improvement. --
Donald Albury(
Talk) 01:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I am not talking about anyone here (that I have seen). I am talking about a new user that I believe is mis-using WP policies to attempt to delete or otherwise destroy reasonable articles. The two that I am familiar with are A_course_in_miracles and Endeavor_Academy. These were not written by me but concern a book and a spiritual movement that I have studied for 15-20 years. Hundreds of thousands of others have at some point or another been involved with this. I am 100% with you in verification and citing sources but it is difficult here.-- Who123 02:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Many of us have become very troubled at one user's application of WP:NOR and find it to violate the core goal of Wikipedia. On the ethnicity pages, an x-American is defined as an American of x-descent. Likewise, countless sources classify an x-American as such. This one user, however, argues that we only include a person in such a category if he or she has directly stated, "I am an x-American" or "I am x". In other words, if someone says, "I am of x descent/heritage/ancestry", or "My parent(s) is/are x" that we cannot include them in categories for x-Americans. In this user's policy, he has set his own definition as to the limited definition he wishes to see on the x-American lists, even going as far as taking out people who have discussed their x heritage at length, expressed an identification with it, and may even be of entirely one ethnicity. This user, however, now requires us to find a source for every person on every list, finding something that specifically identifies them as x-Americans, else we are forced to delete them. We believe this is the equivalent of saying that if someone is called a “female lawyer” that we cannot then put her in the “women lawyers” category as no source directly calls her a woman lawyer. We hold that, as stated in every available definition, an x-American is an American of x-descent. Such categories should not be undermined by one user’s contrary opinion which is based around a Wikipedia policy that the policy was not structured around. It is not original research to say that someone who identifies with his or her Italian roots is an Italian-American. This user, however, believes that it is, and in that case, it must be excluded, as the person is not calling him or herself an x-American. WP:NOR was not built around these inclusions. WP:NOR is, indeed, an important policy, but it should not apply here, as calling someone who is of a certain ethnicity and shows a strong identity to that ethnicity an x-American is not original research. For example, Milo Ventimiglia once discussed in an interview how he got his Italian temper from his father who is from Sicily, yet this user refuses to let us include him as an Italian or Sicilian-American. This user argues that we could classify Ventimiglia’s father as such, but not Ventimiglia. Likewise, Emeril Lagasse has discussed how he is of half Portuguese and half French descent, as well as the large role his heritage has played in his cooking, but this user refuses to let us classify him as a French or Portuguese-American, saying that those would only be good sources for citing Emeril’s parents. Should a person who states his or her heritage, expresses a strong identity to his or her heritage, and has parents from whichever country be defined as an x-American, or should we merely go with someone directly stating, “I am x” or “I am an x-American”, even though every definition available directly states that an x-American is an American of x-descent. Please express your viewpoints below. We had originally taken a poll here [2], but been told to move the discussion to the WP:NOR page. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Michael 02:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I completely agree. I've used the woman example, too. You cannot deny what is fact. If a woman lawyer says she doesn't identify as a "woman lawyer", we don't remove her fromthe category. It's fact, not what someone feels. Michael 04:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Stop saying personal, for goodness sake, and don't act so helpess (i.e. "I don't know what to do!" the horror of not being able to include someone with an X great-grandparent in the X-American category! ) . I have several top editors who have worked on this who agree with me. No, you may not make the inference that because someone has an Irish great-great-grandparent, they are automatically Irisih-American. That is your opinion and Wikipedia can only express it if a reliable source expresses it on that person. This is why we have the "Plagarism" example. Just because something fits the definition of plagarism or not plagarism, it does not mean we may call it that unless a reliable source called it that first. It is so incredibly simple. And no, please don't pull the "redefining definition" stuff. There is no redefining of anything, or else you're saying that by not allowing to include "not plagarism" if it doesn't fit the definition of plagarism we are redefining the definition of plagarism. We quote the definition of a term from reliable sources, and then we include those people that the sources have specifically said may be described with that term. Self-identification is definitely part of X-American. Of course it is. Otherwise you're saying that there isn't a single American out there who isn't an X-American. But if a good source calls someone X-American, that is fine too. This "simple inference" thing is easily disputed here. Because, of course, let's say someone is 1/128th X. Would anyone classify them as X-American? Of course not, not even Michael would. How about 1/64th? 1/32? 1/16? 1/4? Yes? You like 1/4? If you said "yes" to any of the above, then that's your opinion. That's precisely the flaw here. Drawing the line at any of the above "ethnic limits" is the opinion of whichever Wikipedia editor does it. 1/2 is reasonable to me, 1/4 is reasonable to Michael, someone else may want to draw the line at 1/64. Someone more insane may not want to draw any line at all. This is why we are not allowed to make any of "logical inferences" of our own, considering any "logical inference" here is the opinion of the Wikipedia editor who made it, and that should be kept out of Wikipedia. No one here could possibly explain to me the difference between X-American and the Plagarism example we so nicely have planted on this page. So I repeat - Wikipedia reports the definition of a term from a reliable source, and then it may report those people that reliable sources have said fit that term. We do not report people who in our opinion fit the term. Now, is this turning into another 5-day discussion full of phrase repeating by each side? I really don't have the time. I propose that any reponse to this post protesting it begin with a nice and detailed explanation of how the NOR policy applies to plagarism but does not apply to this. Mad Jack 06:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
We have found sources-sources that you will not accept. Becuase something says someone was born to x-American parents or one says he or she is of x-descent, you say that does not make them an x-American. It's that simple. We do not agree with this definition, and who, may I ask, is 1/256 a nationality and knows it? Michael 06:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I know your views. Let's hear from some others who may not have been on the ethnic pages. Michael 06:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That was what you used to do prior to going off this policy and reading it your own way. You actually were not the originator of the 50% policy, if I recall correctly. Michael 06:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Then I should go challenge everyone in the women lawyers category and say we have no sources that directly define them as women lawyers? Furthermore, who is 1/128 a nationality? Michael 07:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
What about the people on the talk pages that have sources discussing their heritage and whatnot but not to your own standards, such as Emeril and Madonna not being in the French list for the reason that they haven't made direct statement calling themselves French-Americans? Michael 07:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No source you would deem reliable says that. Michael 07:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Because he certainly qualifies for that category. I'm sure even you would agree. However, you refuse to accept the source that makes it quite clear that he is. Michael 07:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems that you are not going to answer either of my questions, and that is fine. Until you do, you simply have no argument. The questions were 1. How is X-American different from "Plagiarism" and 2. let's say you were allowed to make these inferences. The problem now becomes anyone can list whoever they want. Sure, most would agree listing people who are "half". Some may want to list anyone with any X ancestry. Some may want to limit it to people who are full. And of course, we are not allowed to do either. It is not a simple inference because, quite obviously, a simply inference would be something that is 100% agreed on and could not be debated, which this is simply not. Mad Jack 20:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly...and that was my point on plagiarism. If we change Wikipedia to be a mirror image of every other site, it loses its value. We, however, have the right to use what is commonly used as a definition. No one has said a source citing a woman as a "female attorney" would prevent categorization as a "woman lawyer". It's ridiculous to say such. Likewise, an x-American is said to be an American of x-descent-we have seen no definitions for exceptions. If you do not approve of it as it is, take that up on the "Italian-American" article, but the definition is quite clear and is commonly understood. Michael 23:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Saying that ethnic identification is a value judgement or POV appears to be your opinion. The mere fact that someone says "I don't want to be considered as Italian" is irrelevant. This isn't the encyclopaedia of what Madonna wants people to think. So I wish people would stop using that argument as its entirely pointless. If a reliable source states that her Italian is a significant part of her life, then its entirely appropriate to put her in that classification. And again I have stressed many times, you should take this to the appropriate talk pages of those articles, not here. Wjhonson 02:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
He would also be under Portuguese-Americans for that reason, Jack. Don't be ridiculous. He is of French descent-the Portuguese ancestry is not considered. To be a French-American, nowehere does it say one must be fully that ethnicity. It's quite simple. If I were categorizing an actress of both film and television, she could go in both categories, as we do not say that the television actors category cannot include actors who are also film actors. That point makes no sense. Further, we cite encyclopedic information; what one merely idenitifies with is not encyclopedic, and you, Jack, cannot place a limit on the criteria when many of us find the criteria to be clear in saying that an x-American is an American of x-descent. You cannot rip that apart and then say that it may mean the person can only be of one ethnic background. Michael 04:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Just curious, why is it that the people who disagree with me are the ones who pursue long discussions with me, while those who agree with me just say they do and then never post on here again? This whole thing is really taking up too much time. Again, we do not match definitions to people we think match those definitions. That's why we have the plagiarism example. Yes and I am scoring that point very well, because obviously people who are 1/200-whatever should not and are not considered X-Americans, but if you use "certain" definitions some editors may say they are. We can not draw the line anyway. It's that simple. We can't have "List of French Americans - oh, btw, don't include anyone who has less than this X ancestry because 10 Wikipedia editors decided that's not sufficient to be X-American". Again, I don't see the motivation for this discussion. Look at List of Welsh-Americans and List of French Americans - perfectly fine lists sourced under Wiki policy. There is no reason to break NOR just so we can include a few more people in the lists. Mad Jack 19:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Jack, if you have a problem with the definition, take it up on the ethnicity pages. Go to each one. Tell me how the "Italian-American" article can say an American who is of Italian descent is an Italian-American if that's not allowed. One definition is stated. Either go edit each and every one of those to conform to your argument or change your mandate, because as it is, there is an immense discrepancy between your interpretation and what is stated as the definition. Michael 04:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have not asked for you to reiterate what you are saying. I understand it, but in no way do I agree with it. Michael 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
After reading this debate I must conclude that while Mad Jack may have a reasonable point to begin with, I find his use of instrumental rationalisation leads to an irrational outcome. Reason lies in finding a balance, not following logic to the extreme. IMO a too strict policy of deleting or omitting logical inferences leads to a dry, unreadable list of quotes instead of an encyclopaedia. -- Tchoutoye 07:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
As of now, we're not able to add someone who is half a nationality and expresses a strong connection to it. Further, Jack will allow information to be included if something directly calls the person x or an x-American. If someone says he or she is of x-descent, Jack won't allow it. Michael 01:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite clear on what the difference is between Original Research and Rephrasing or Reasoning something. My example is slightly obscure, but is the best I can come up with at the moment. If say, no-one anywhere had published something saying that the District Line had the most number of stations on the London Underground (this 'factoid' has been published, but for the sake of argument let's say that only the number of stations on each line had been published). Would it then be Original Research to look at a list of the number of stations on each line and say "The District Line has the most number of stations". To me this is similar to the "deductive reasoning" section above (which concerned deducing people's nationality), but this is a clearer case of deductive reasoning. Other cases I can think of include saying things like "team Y is the first team to have won trophy X by this scoreline since 1860". This sort of thing is verifiable, but if it hasn't been published elsewhere, the only way to verify it is for the reader to go and check various lists and see if this is true. So where is the line drawn between rephrasing and representing a set of facts and maybe adding some obvious deductive reasoning, and this process becoming Original Research? A similar process would be seen for the process of rewriting and rephrasing things from a source. Where is the line drawn between summarising several sources (which is one of the prime purposes of a tertiary source like an encyclopedia), and synthesising those sources in such a way that (maybe accidentally) new connections and insights are revealed about the topic? I've also raised this at the Village Pump (policy) section. Carcharoth 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That's great. Thanks. I'll point people to this discussion, or come back with more examples if the need arises. Carcharoth 09:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
How does this policy affect sections of articles discussing interpretations of poems, novels, and the like? For example, would it be allowable to write something like "Others have countered that the second stanza alludes not to the German bombings of Exeter but instead to the actions of a serial killer active in the city at the time" and then cite a selection of sources advocating this position, even if those sources were self-published? As the article will only claims the existence of this alternative interpretation (and will not claim greater authority for it), would the use of self-published sources be appropriate - after all, the existence of several documents detailing an interpretation does seem to be reliable evidence for the existence of that interpretation? -- Safalra 19:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Recent discussion has frequently mentioned the WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. The example says that one shouldn't take information from two reputable sources, Chicago Manual of Style and Harvard's student writing manual, to contest a conclusion in a (made-up) reputable source, Smith (the conclusion being that Jones committed plagiarism). Since editors aren't supposed to do original research, it stands to reason that an editor shouldn't contest a reputable source through his own reasoning, but rather, should find another reputable source to contest the conclusion.
The problem illustrated by the example is that one source, Smith, says flatly that Jones committed plagiarism. The two others do not make a flat statement that Jones did not commit plagiarism, instead, they provide some general information about how to cite sources which might or might not apply to the Jones case; it requires considerable interpretation and reasoning by the editor to conclude that the Chicago manual and the writing manual support the idea that Jones didn't plagiarize.
The discussion on the talk page sometimes seems to be claiming that the plagarism example shows that one should not make simple uncontested conclusions; I don't think that's what the example means. I think the example means editors shouldn't try to contest a reputable source through their own reasoning.
Gerry Ashton 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Some types of information are just not going to be published anywhere, but are important to explaining ideas in an article.
For example, look at the Emergent Gameplay article (probably a poor article as it stands, I know). In the section on examples of emergent gameplay, these will seldom to never be published anywhere and so by this "No Original Research" policy would not be able to be included. However these examples are important for conveying to the reader what emergent gameplay is.
There should be some strict guidelines describeing exceptions to this policy, such as:
Exceptions to the No Original Research Policy are allowed if:
Further, exception to this policy are already a de facto part of wikipedia. A sizeable percentage of wikipedia would be gone if the policy were enforced consistantly across wikipedia.
- AbstractClass 21:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I propose changing
This is even shorter than the original version. Does it capture what we are trying to say? (The first "we" could be replaced by "editors", if desired.) Precis 07:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You CANNOT delete a view from a published source based on original research. That would violate NPOV. All verifiable views can and should be included in Wikipedia regardless of whether an editor agrees or disagrees. Period. user:slrubenstein
You CANNOT omit a view from a published source based on original research. That would violate NPOV. All verifiable views can and should be included in Wikipedia regardless of whether an editor agrees or disagrees. Period. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Imagine Police Chief Smith of Metropolis holds a sparsely attended press conference to announce this year's crime statistics. His exact words are "Last year we had 33 violent crimes. This year we had 149 violent crimes". A wikipedian is present at this press conference and decides to add this to the article on Metropolis. Would it violate NOR to write:
Why or why not? - O^O
The Wikipedian at the press conference would need a published source for the WP-report on crime. Basing the report solely on personal recollection of the press conference is original research. Precis 21:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source. I rest my case. Precis 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Some statements made at sparsely attended press conferences are unpublished. And this statement was one of them; that's why personal recollection was necessary. Precis 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Correct, and one can just as rightly say "Personal recollections of unpublished statements are OR per se, and so are not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia articles." Precis 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't mean that anything "not verifiable is automatically original research". Something not verifiable is simply not verifiable, that means, you cannot tell if its a real source citation or not. It's ambivalent, its unclear. That's not the same as
WP:OR which is a clear statement.
Wjhonson 06:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The sparsely attended, unrecorded, news conference fails to qualify as a "published source", in my opinion, and thus referring to it violates WP:NOR. I would go further and say that it also violates WP:V because it would be too costly for most Wikipedians to do the verification. Here is a related example. A bookstore in Nepal owns a rare book, the only one of its kind in the world. You travel to Nepal to get a quote from this book for Wikipedia. You could claim that your quote was verifiable because anyone who wants can travel to Nepal to verify your quote. But I don't think most Wikipedians would agree that this constitutes verifiability. Precis 14:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Your example: "Metropolis experienced a 350% increase in violent crime" is not only original research, but also violated WP:NPOV. You could write: "According to Police Chief Smith of Metropolis, the city experienced a 350% increase in violent crime", and you could follow it by "... and this is disputed by statistics complied by Metropolis' Bureau of statistics, which reports an increase of 120%". Describe the viewpoints, without asserting them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone object to replacing
by
If so, why? (Both have 11 words.) Precis 22:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It may seem that both phrases say exactly the same thing. But while the second one looks at two factors and prioritizes, the first one might leave the impression that verifiability is the only game in town. Is that really what we want to say? When I decide on the various points of view to include in an article, verifiability is my top priority, but I also strive to paint an accurate picture. Verifiability and truth are not mutually exclusive. Precis 07:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Eloquently put. My sentiments exactly. And the proposed new wording emphasizes that verifiability always gets priority over truth. But unlike the current wording, it won't leave anyone with the impression that we are unconcerned with building a WP that "accurately reflects human knowledge". Precis 11:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I liked the language there and borrowed it. I make no claims to originality. Precis 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. And for that reason, when I make the change, nobody will take the trouble to revert. (Just kidding--I'll drop the issue, for lack of consensus.) Precis 20:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses NO such definition as your POV "published to the broad, general public". Be advised that wikipedia is NOT a forum for you to promote your original research.-- Fahrenheit451 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No, publish does not mean "to the general public" in the common english dictionary. It does only in your POV. Your viewpoint is unfortunately very fixed. I never stated, "distributed to a membership", rather you have falsely accused me of saying that. Knock it off, Terryeo.-- Fahrenheit451 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source. I rest my case. Precis 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think truth should be at least as important as verifiability. Can someone please explain to me the purpose behind ignoring the truth. 01001 03:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, you are again attempting to promote your POV definition of the word "publish". Wikipedia does deal with published information. Please stop interjecting your own definitions as if they were common english ones. -- Fahrenheit451 17:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
And "public" is a group of people who share a common interest. I would suggest you look up the terms in the dictionary, but it appears to me that you are not dealing in good faith, and would not sincerely take my advice. -- Fahrenheit451 20:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm looking for some help. Over on the Moscow Metro talk page we're trying to pick one of two tables for inclusion in the article listing the lines of the Moscow Metro. We currently have two proposals. One of the editors feels that the second proposal constitutes original research. Please let us know if this is the case. I realize that this sounds ridiculous, but it's true. I asked him to back up his position, but he didn't really answer properly. It seems that he's simply using NOR as an excuse to prevent the inclusion of the second table. Let us know if he's correct in his accusations.— lensovet– talk – 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I used to live in Duckburg. I'm going to write an article describing the statues there. Next to an oak tree in the center of town is a giant statue of Lenin. Well, hmmm, maybe it was Stalin, I'm not sure. Come to think of it, the tree might have been a maple. Oh well, I'll just put down that there is a statue of Lenin next to a large oak tree. If I'm wrong, someone from Duckburg will undoubtedly read my article in the next year or two and correct me. Precis 13:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." Are there any AfD precedents pertaining to this that would help in the interpretation of that policy at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States health reform 1912-1920? Thanks! Medtopic 07:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty with the concept of "self-published". Exactly what does it entail?
It is unlikely that an author would be invited to write a book about a subject by a publisher. Rather an author writes a book on a certain topic and then tries to find someone willing to publish it. I thus guess the policy refers to the presence of absence of a publisher? Or does it refer to the quality of the publishing firm? If it is the latter then it is quite a slippery policy. How are publishing houses graded into acceptable and not acceptable?
I know of a Swedish reporter who wrote a book so critical of the Swedish banking family, the Wallenbergs, that he could not find anyone publisher who dared publish him. He then chose to publish his unedited manuscript on the internet for free. I guess that example would constitute self published. But if he had found a publisher, what criteria would the publisher have to meet to label the author "self-published"?
For example, are the authors published by this publishing house "self-published", or admissible as sources in wikipedia? Algora Publishing -- Stor stark7 Talk 15:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, what does published "to the general public" mean? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: 'Nuff said. Jon Awbrey 06:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: The point of the remark is that the concept of publication is about as well understood as it's going to get, and is certainly not helped by tautological additions like "published to the general public". Publication itself does not bear the entire weight of the criterion in question, since there are also the qualifications of reliability and reputation to be taken into account. In this respect, circulation does not substitute for credibility. Jon Awbrey 06:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Best to stick with the way that dictionaries and scholars normally use these words. No good will come of trying to write specific circulation numbers, much less specific distribution histories into the definition. Many journals have small print runs. The fact that a work is printed and can turn up in a library means that it's public. A lot of scholarship is based on sources that are rarer than that in their initial publications. Jon Awbrey 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I like JA's economy of language, but if he'll permit a bit of inflation, I'd say "published=made publicly accessible", to rule out unrecorded speeches and broadcasts. Precis 06:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm highly offended by SV's last line :-D. Now to the point. Since SV won't answer the question, I'll answer it myself with a simple syllogism.
Most of us are unwilling to accept this conclusion , so we cannot accept the initial premise either. In short, the answer to my question is NO! That's why I brought accessibility into the picture. SV's point about notability is simply wrong. I doubt if all of Rachmaninoff's unrecorded public concerts can be called non-noteable. Noteability isn't always a prerequisite for citations anyway. An organization is allowed to use non-notable published sources in an article about itself.
P.S. "publicly accessible" does not mean "easily accessible". I'm fully aware that some published items are only available at great expense. I'm also aware that there some previously published works are now completely inaccessible. Hence my definition isn't perfect, if you're of the school that says "once published, always published". Precis 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
No, published does NOT mean "distributed to the public". That is nonsense. A good couter-example is a website. That is not distributed, but rather made accessible. "Public" is a group of individuals who share a common interest, like english-speaking people, stamp collectors, software developers, golfers, etc. -- Fahrenheit451 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hurts my eyes to read such a tortuous sentence. Wjhonson 06:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: It's been rewritten since Wjhonson's comment. Bad semicolon fixed and split into two sentences. Jon Awbrey 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Reliable, reputable published sources must always be publicly accessible. I think most everyone here would agree. Are they publicly accessible by virtue of being published? (There is disagreement here--some say that the concepts "published" and "accessible" are not that closely related.) Are they publicly accessible by virtue of being reliable? (There is disagreement here too--some say that the concepts "reliable" and "accessible" are not that closely related.) Are they publicly accessible by virtue of being both reliable and published in conjunction? Here I'm guessing that the consensus is YES. If so, it wouldn't hurt to make this holistic interpretation clear on the main pages. (Note: "publicly accessible" doesn't necessarily mean "easily accessible"). Precis 10:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is a specific circumstance. If we don't accept that accessibility is built into the phrase "reputable reliable published source", then we are faced with the absurd and embarrassing situation where the synopsis of the Verifiability policy at WP:V has little or nothing to do with verifiability. If you disagree, go to the three-point policy section on that page and tell me where accessibility (the cornerstone of verifiability) is mentioned. If we don't require accessibility in that Policy section, how can we say this is a policy about verifiability? Can editors verify something that is inaccessible? Thanks. 13:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I am having a problem with not being able to source a common knowledge and widely accepted opinion, which a user wants to remove because there is no source, even though he agrees it is accurate and factual. It is related to the section Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition#1911 Britannica in the 21st century - and talk discussion Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition#Original research. User:John Kenney is saying that because there is no source for the errors in the EB1911, they should be removed from the article. The errors in EB1911 are self-evident and clear and factual and quoted. Do we really need a third party to "confirm" the errors before they can included in Wikipedia? How do we resolve this? Are we not allowed to say that EB1911 has problems as a 100 year old source? This seems so self-evident and supportable by quotes from EB1911. And I've looked, and have not been able to find a recent critical review of EB1911. -- Stbalbach 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: This is a generic problem in Wikipedia, and it betrays a number of places where the policies are not written as well as they might be. Outside of here, it is generally understood that we are concerned with grounded research, and that audit trails can ground out in several different ways besides an explicit citation. Common knowledge and common sense are some of those common grounds, but it's notoriously difficult to give a rule to common sense. Have to break here, will get back to it later. Jon Awbrey 19:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Oh, is that all. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and the statements in it do not have to be treated with that kind of awe. The burden of verifiability remains on the one who wishes to retain the statement, and it can be deleted if it cannot be verified independently. Another alternative is simply to cite the old curioisity sop verbatim as "blah-blah" (EB 1911), and let the reader judge. Most folks will avoid the absurdity of that unless it's a really amusing absurdity. Jon Awbrey 21:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Discussion below moved from user talk page. Jon Awbrey 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
At WP:NOR one of your recent edit summaries stated: 22:08, 31 July 2006 Jon Awbrey (Talk | contribs) (revert solecism). Did you mean the edit you reverted was:
JA: Sorry for the ambiguity. I was referring to the tautological aspects of "publish to the public", and so was using solecism in the sense of a defective bit of logic, in particular, a qualification posing as information that conveys in fact no additional information. For example, the unabridged Webster gives: "a theory, situation, act, etc., not consonant with logic, circumstances, known facts, or the like". Jon Awbrey 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: My general sense here is that you are making a mistake very similar to that of writing too specific a patent or policy, in that every clause you add only magnifies and multiplies the loopholes. We are not charged to create a novel definition of publication here — indeed we are proscribed from doing so. Jon Awbrey 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, your statement "published to the broad, general public, as any dictionary will tell you the common use of the term provides," is an outright falsehood. That is your definition that represents your POV. Publication is always done to a public, that is, a group of people who share a common interest, be they english speaking, knitting hobbyists, or bicyclists. Your definition is rather useless and unrealistic.-- Fahrenheit451 20:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Text below moved from my user talk page, as I'm only here off and on anymore, and stuff on my talk page is likely to lose all connection with relevant context. Jon Awbrey 03:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: No, a tautology is not an inconsistency. A tautology is simply not informative, as published already means made public, and that's all she wrote as far as publication goes. Jon Awbrey 03:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, please stop lying about my discussion statements. I never stated that distributed information was published. You falsely accuse me of that. I ask you to immediately stop spouting lies in our discussions.-- Fahrenheit451 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
A good example for purposes of illustration. The word "publish" in any dictionary will present published as being to the broad, genearal public because it arises from the word "to the public", that is, to everyone (ideally). We have gone around and around for a long time about verifying distributed information. But that isn't the point at all, the point it, such information is unpublished until it becomes published. When it is published (by whatever method) then it can be included into Wikipedia, but not before. This is what places Wikipeda above an expose' newspaper because Wikipedia only deals in previously published to the general public information. And as soon as soon as the public has it from a reliable source, *BAM*, it can be included in wikipedia. Terryeo 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The big problem with your argument Terryeo, is that the "general public" is a general concept and does not identify a who. Those who publish, and I speak from firsthand experience, target one or more groups of people who share a common interest as a means to make information public. It can be english-speaking people, spanish-speaking people, coin collectors, joggers. Your "broad, general public" argument, quite frankly, is contrived nonsense. -- Fahrenheit451 20:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, now you have gone from "published to the public" to this abstract generality of "broad, general public". I object to your lying about what I have presented in these discussions and you have not included any links because you have nothing factual to link. Reminds me of the Office of Special Affairs ad-hominem attack tactic. I suggest you knock it off.-- Fahrenheit451 04:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Your syllogism was a tautology, and therefore didn't result in a meaningful conclusion, Precis, but nice try. I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's private-language argument here. There is no such thing as a private language, he argued, because all languages require an element of publicity and public agreement e.g. that "table" means a thing with legs that you can rest other things on, and that it will mean this to all native English speakers. You confirm this by interacting with them around the issue of tables, and sure enough, they seem to be using the word the way you're using it, so all is well: you know you're speaking a language, because the public is confirming that they know what you're saying, and also that you're using the term consistently. This discussion is heading along the same lines. We need public affirmation of some kind before publication can be said to have taken place. We need an entry on Amazon, or a mention in The Times (or local paper), or a letter to the editor, or a transcript of a tape, a copy of a broadcast, and so on. It has to be out there in some form, not just a broadcast that maybe no one even heard, or if they did, they didn't themselves publish their thoughts about it. So maybe there was a sense in which it was made public, but that sense was ephemeral, like me trying to teach myself a private language: that S means sensations like the one I feel in my leg now, and that S1 means sensations like the one I feel now, where I can only hope (but can never know) that the next time I use S or S1, I will use them correctly — because there is no one out there I can share them with, and therefore no one who can tell me if I'm wrong. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Argueablely, the official program was distributed to a select, private audience which had purchased tickets. Should a publisher then put together a book about the Giants and include a portion of that program, distributing it to the general public, it would become published. Terryeo 13:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No, published means to make public. Public being a group of persons who share a common interest. In your example the group of persons are those interested in baseball. The publication may reach those who are not, but the intended target of the publication would be reached. -- Fahrenheit451 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The logic is curious to me for another reason. I don't understand how there is a difference in intent. The intended audience for the live game and for the stack of programs is the same: the subset of the public willing to pay the price to enter the stadium. Precis 21:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. Yes, the program has ads in it, but the stadium is also plastered with ads, so there is no difference there either. Precis 21:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If I had a public key for Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, or Donald Trump that my bank signed, then I think I would be able to trust their material as verbatim. But perhaps the key should also bear their e-mail address or web site, just in case any kids bear those legal names.
And, I guess the verbatim and complete material might go in wikiquote, just in case you wanted to check the signature, yourself, to ensure that you were talking to the same Elvis.
[11] 216.234.170.66 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Costello, that is.
Hi.
I'm wondering about this "no original research" policy, specifically, would the following scenario be against the policy?:
1. Person publishes their original research in a peer-reviewed journal.
2. Research passes 5 years of vigorous scrutiny.
3. Person writes an article here about their own research, BUT they ONLY include the ideas that were in the published, peer-reviewed journal, and reference it.
If this is against the policy, then I think this needs to become an exception because the whole point has to do with peer review and verifiability. If it gets peer review and the peer-reviewed content is all that is mentioned in the article, it shouldn't matter if the research is technically "original" (ie from the same person as the author of the article) or not. If it _doesn't_ go against the policy, perhaps this should be made clear.
-- 70.101.146.206 21:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The editors of the Bob Dylan article are arguing that their prose does not violate OR and some others have nominated it to FAR. This desparately needs some neutral, third-party eyes to step in here. Of interest too is the talk page for the article. I'm not sure I'm expert enough to step in myself. I'd always assumed "brilliant prose" still needed to be backed up by sources - I can't say something's the greatest thing since slice bread unless a reputable and verifiable source has made that claim, right? plange 23:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Based on Gerry Ashton's definition, I propose this definition of publish: "Making information available to the interested public without active restrictions (lawful non-disclosure agreements, statutory confidentiality), other than a means of exchange (barter, fees) or a level of knowledge (pre-requisites)."-- Fahrenheit451 02:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
No wheel reinventing intended. I think this discussion arises out of a need for a definition that is clear for editing purposes and conforms with the dictionary definitions.-- Fahrenheit451 03:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is an alternate proposal, followed by my rationale.
Rationale: When Wikipedia policy refers to "published", verifiability is a necessary condition, with no exceptions. Jossi's idea to combine "published" and "reputable" is tenable, except on the rare occasions when Wikipedians want an understanding of "published" independent of reputability, for example, when an organization uses a self-published source in an article about itself. Precis 08:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Rationale: "to the general public", rather than "public" can prevent misunderstandings. Including "Reliable way" is again, almost redundant. But reliability, stability, is important to Wikipedia. Terryeo 16:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
And "general public" is an abstract, general term which has nothing to do with publishing. The target of publishing is "a group of people who share a common interest" which is not a mob, or the masses, or everybody.-- Fahrenheit451 22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Not true, the common interest could be a common language and english-speaking people are a public.-- Fahrenheit451 23:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Would other editors please comment on this issue? Terryeo 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I like the evolution of Gerry Ashton's definition of publish:"To make available in fixed form (i.e. paper, CD, web page) to the interested public without active restrictions (i.e. non-disclosure agreements), except non-free publishers may apply restrictions to assure payment." I think this is the most workable definition proffered thusfar.-- Fahrenheit451 23:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Publication implies fixed form. Terryeo, you seem to believe that watching Dumbo do tricks at the circus is a publication, and it is not, it is a performance. A recording of the performance made available to attendees would be a publication. On the matter of distribution, the consensus seems to be that a group of interested persons is the intended public of a publication. -- Fahrenheit451 02:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that a definition of "publish" that deviates from the common definition would be a no-no. Ashton's proposed wording is not based on that common understanding. I am observing that editors are trying to "fix" policy so that they can use or otherwise challenge a source in articles they are involved with. That may be obfuscating their ability to make proposals that may improve the current wording. I would argue that anybody that comes to check Wikipedia, would have a very simple and direct understanding of what "published" means and what a "reliable source" means. We already have enough work in explaining to newbies and the world what NPOV is, and we do not need to say "but wait: we also define 'published' very differently than you do". Let's keep it simple, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, I don't see that adding a definition of publish will make matters worse for wikipedians. On the contrary, I think it could bring clarity to the editing process. Yes, it should not be different than the dictionary definition, rather it should be similar, but refined for our editing purposes.-- Fahrenheit451 02:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, please knock off your lying nonsense. I never stated "published to a public" You stated that. Other editors have already unfavorably commented on your rather unrealistic and shortsighted definition of publish. -- Fahrenheit451 04:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, please sign your posts. And stop the lying, you did say everyone: "Normally, people pay to attend a baseball game, so I used that illustration. But the cost is not the significant factor I attempted to communicate. The idea of information being distributed to a selected group of individuals does not constitute "published". Instead, "published" means "to the public" and "the public" is not a specific group of persons, but everyone, anyone, without regard to whether they attend a baseball game or stay home or go to the beach. Terryeo 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)" and "Public" is sometimes used to refer to and seperate from consideration, certain subgroups of people. But the base from which the word springs, its derivation is "people" without any qualification whatsoever. [9]. Everyone, all mankind. "Public" would not include animals nor plants nor rocks nor trees, but instead, "people". When a dictionary states, "published to the public", with no modifier to the word "public" the dictionary means, "published to all of the public", i.e. although not every individual person receives a copy, the target published to is "everyone". Terryeo 08:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)" and "F451, I simply don't see how you can possibly consider "published to a public" to be a definition at all of published ! The word "public" means "poeple", that is people without any qualifications or preselection. i.e. everyone, i.e., the common public, i.e., the general public. I simply don't understand why you don't get what (I think) everyone else understands "publish" to mean. Terryeo 02:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)" -- Fahrenheit451 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I used a word to make clear an idea. I used "everyone". I am attempting to spell out a difference.
And your statement is ridiculous: There are hunting magazines, fly-fishing magazines, mountain bike magazines, golfing magazines, etc. that cater to specific groups of people who share a common interest. Publishing to a public occurs all the time, therefore your conclusion is utter nonsense.-- Fahrenheit451 06:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
All right, then just name us one publication that is intended for "the public".-- Fahrenheit451 06:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I asked you to name one publication that is intended for "the public" and you did NOT do that, instead you listed a link to definitions you selected. Again, if you cannot provide the name of a publication that is intended for "the public" as you define, your argument is invalid.-- Fahrenheit451 12:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
To fix your continuous problem between "the" and "a", I would suggest that you consider whether: "Anyone who has the means, may obtain a copy from the publisher, without undue interference." Or language to that affect. Wjhonson 19:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
That definition is o.k. I dn't know whether you were addressing me or not, but the definite versus indefinite article controversy is long over for me. I guess Terryeo is still fighting that battle.-- Fahrenheit451 20:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Please comment on this: "Publish: To make available in documented form (e.g. paper, CD, web page) to the interested public without active restrictions (e.g. non-disclosure agreements), with the exception that non-free publishers may apply restrictions to ensure payment for a publication." -- Fahrenheit451 05:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC) revisions in script-- Fahrenheit451 13:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
When you contradict yourself, that makes your argument invalid. You insist that a game played in front of people within a stadium is "published". Yet you say (emphasis mine)
That's a flat-out contradiction. You can try to explain yourself by bringing in other issues, such as publisher's intent, but it's too late: the contradictory statement has already been made. Note: It is your view that a live football game is published but the half-time band entertainment is not, even though both are performed before the same public (those in the stadium). To avoid further contradictory statements, it may help to specify the other criteria you use in your definition (publisher's intent, public expectation, or whatever). Precis 09:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. You state that if the distribution of material is constrained "in any manner whatsoever" then you wouldn't consider it "published". Yet you consider a live football game published even though the publisher is imposing a constraint: only people in the stadium get to watch the game. So you contradict yourself once again. (It is irrelevant that tickets are available to the general public. If you are too sick to go to the stadium, you don't get to watch the game, whether you have season tickets or not.) Precis 11:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what on earth is going on here. An "interested public" is self-selected. A magazine, or a journal, or a book is published to be purchased and read by whoever in the public is interested in it. Thus, the interested public. People who are not interested will, by definition, not buy it, because they are not interested. I suppose one can come up with silly exceptions, like "the guy who catches part of a movie in an electronics store," but that's just silly and not an exception which really warrants changing the definition. That things are published for the interested public is more or less a tautology, and I can't for the life of me understand why it is controversial. Also, everyone should remember that etymology is not destiny. Just because a word derives from a particular Latin root does not mean that its meaning is forever cicrcumscribed by the meaning of that Latin word. Beyond that, though, I've got some doubts about Gerry Ashton's definition - "except non-free publishers may apply restrictions to assure payment" is both awkward and not grammatically correct, if I'm not mistaken. It would at least need a "that" after except to be grammatically right, but even so it's an awkward and artificial way of saying things. I'm also somewhat concerned about the mention of "web pages." That makes for a pretty broad definition of "published," which would include, say, every blog in the world. Why so much emphasis on "published sources" in this extremely broad sense, when what really matters is reputable published sources? john k 12:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Point well taken, but "reputable" is something other than "published". Sure, web pages are usually published.-- Fahrenheit451 13:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
\
I don't see anything wrong with the grammar there. According to Oxford exchange means: "an act of giving one thing and receiving another (esp. of the same type or value) in return." This is in response to the editor who brought up the point of requiring completion of a survey. We could fall back to "payment", it's just that there will be some exceptions to the definition. I guess that's o.k.--
Fahrenheit451 20:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
When asked on two occasions in these discussions to provide examples of actual publications that fit his definition of publish, he did not do so. -- Fahrenheit451 13:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Terryeo has been unable to provide Examples of publications that fit his definition of published. So, just assuming Terryeo is really using Webster's Dictionary as an example of his definition of published, we find that Webster's is written in english, this excludes all non-english literates. Thus, Webster's is published to a group of people who share a common interest, the english language. It is also not published with distribution to those who do not want it, but use another, like Oxford. That is not "everyone". I think it can be stated that Terryeo's arguments for his definition have been demolished.-- Fahrenheit451 18:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Jossi and BTfromLA are right. 'Published,' 'reliable source,' and 'original research' have all been sufficiently defined at Wikipedia for a very long time; recent attempts here to redefine these terms are fatally flawed and will never pass muster and make into canon. FeloniousMonk 04:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, please stop misinforming the editors in this discussion. The student receives a copy of the transcript and gets to keep it. So, it is published, although to a small public. Here is an image link to a promotional leaflet for the course, which is published by the way [15] and [16]-- Fahrenheit451 02:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
So this whole thing is part of a dispute about scientology? Tough cases make bad law. We shouldn't use such a dispute as a basis for what our definition of whether something has been "published" is. As far as I can tell, there is no major dispute about what "published" means, and the dispute is not one which ought to be resolved by refining our definition of "published," but rather by the normal methods of WP:V. If Fahrenheit's statements can be verified by sources available to other people, it is acceptable. If not, it isn't, even if it's true. john k 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
(unindent) The most recent phase of this discussion started when User:Donald Albury that the current policy is adequate as it stands. There were then posts from seven editors agreeing that if a distributor imposes substantial restrictions on who can receive a work, the work is not verifiable for Wikipedia purposes, and that current policies and guidelines are sufficient to deal with any editor who cites such material in Wikipedia. I've always been ambivalent about whether there should be a policy or guideline change, but I've been firmly opposed to the wrong changes. The personal experiences that make this an issue for me have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with quasi-published information in the electronic design software arena. I'm content to leave the policies and guidelines as they are. -- Gerry Ashton 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
To conclude this particular thread, Terryeo was unable to provide any real examples of a publication that fit his POV definition of "publish". His arguments for this definition were demolished. He then was allowed to change the subject and interject an attack on myself. That attack was dissapated and the status quo of "publish" remains. -- Fahrenheit451 09:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This lengthy discussion originated by Terryeo claiming that the word "published" means "published to the public" and "public" being some abstract generality as "everyone". The edit cited by Terryeo I let go because this published material is of rather restricted distribution so as to be difficult at present to verify. That is the simplicity of it. We don't need any further rumor-mongering from Terryeo about how this developed. I have no objection to ending this discussion. However, I think that we have not heard the last of this distorted POV definition. Dispute resolution process, here we come.-- Fahrenheit451 03:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In an effort to get to the finish line:
RESOLVED: There is no need for a Wikipedia-specific definition of the word "published."
Dear friends:
Forgive me for being obtuse, but I always thought that the better encyclopedias were composed of articles written by experts who did original research in determining what points to emphasize, what authorities had to say in the field and just what the article MEANT to the readers of the encyclopedia.
Encyclopedia articles are quite often signed, either with a full name or initials.
Obviously I can't argue against this established policy of Wikipedia, but I don't fully understand it, even though I try to follow it in my Wiki-editing and Wiki-writing. Every writer picks and chooses his material, so there is inherent "originality" in what he accomplishes.
Second point, this dictum ("no original research") is more honored in the breach than the observance. Click on "Random article" in the column at the left, and you will probably get a screenful of original research — or a screenful of words that very seldom are backed up by any sources. Just try it.
As an aside, I refer you to Jonathan Club, an article which I just completed and in which I attempted to source every fact. Well, I didn't succeed, because there are one or two sentences that are still unsourced and (gasp!) an interpretation of the material that surrounds them. If you can figure out a way to write the piece without the (very few) interpretations, I would be glad to hear them — or rather, see them.
I hope to hear from you on both of the above points.
Yours sincerely,
GeorgeLouis 07:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Friends, I know exactly what the rule is; the problem is that, carried to its logical conclusion, every single sentence would have to be sourced, and we all know that is just not happening and will not happen. Take this section from Yoyogi Park, for example:
What is now Yoyogi Park was the site of the first successful powered aircraft flight in Japan, on December 19, 1910, by Captain Yoshitoshi Tokugawa, following which it became an army parade ground.
Yeah, who said? No source. And the reference at the bottom of the article leads to a Web site in Japanese. Yet the article as a whole is a good contribution to WikiP if you don't read Japanese. None of the editors who have worked on it during the past two years have flagged it as unsourced. Should it be? Take a look at it and let me know. Thanks very much for your time. I appreciate your comments. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 05:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Precis, that is a very interesting page (in English, too), but it does not say anything about powered aircraft flights, Capt. Tokugawa or army parade grounds. As I mentioned above, you could click on any "Random article" and find similar unsourced material, so the stricture against "no original research" is really a hollow one. I really do not think most WikiP writers know HOW to credit their material within the body of their work (if they care to at all); college professors have struggled for decades to help students learn this technique, and I think most high school teachers have just given up.
Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
<<Something is not original research because it isn't sourced. Something is original research because it can't be sourced.>> This is probably this best distinction I have seen and perhaps should be added to the Original Research page, wherever that might be.
I think the distinction can also be made between an article that states "The speed of light is 186,000 miles an hour" (no source needed because it is common knowledge) and "The Ferrari was traveling 96 miles an hour when it hit the light pole, according to information taken from the onboard data recorder and quoted in the police report at www.malibucops.com/Ferrari.html" (source needed).
We can't go around needing a citation for "George Washington wore wooden false teeth," but we would need one for "Sammy Stutz, the drummer in Four Little Dood-Heads, carried a four-leaf clover for luck at each concert in months beginning with the letter J." It's really up to the article writer (and the editor) to be able to make a distinction between commonly known data that needn't be sourced and lesser-known data that should be sourced so that readers can look it up themselves if they are so minded. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 20:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think part of the confusion arises from the difference between the Wikipedia policy of 'NOR' and the academic usage of the phrase 'original research'. Furthermore I think it would be worth clarifying this point as I believe it is an important factor in discouraging many humanities academics from contributing to Wikipedia, as I have personally encountered a number who feel they do not understand how to adhere to NOR. The Wikipedia definition assesses individual words, sentences and statements to establish whether they can be traced to reputable sources. By contrast the academic definition looks at the piece as a whole to consider whether it makes, as a whole, an original contribution. In the humanities, and particularly in history, a piece of work can be 'original research' even when it advances no new interpretations or causal narrative whatsoever, but merely brings together bits of information which were previously uncollated. Historiography is partly the act of collation - and finding the information to include, and selecting what to exclude, may under certain circumstances be enough on its own to constitute 'original research' for academic purposes. The dividing line between a term paper and original research is not, contrary to popular opinion, always the use of unpublished sources, or even the advocacy of a new line of argument, but can also be the attempt to address a subject for the first time, even if all the sources used are other scholarly publications (I take this definition from the rules of my own university). Such collation of materials is what many Wikipedia articles have to do, since for many minor historical topics, it may be that no sustained discussion of the topic in question has ever been published, although there may be an adequate supply of published references to draw upon which address discrete aspects of a topic. Articles of this type are NOR in a Wikipedia sense, because the individual sentences can be sourced, but may feel to an academic like 'original research', albeit of a fairly simple kind, where the completed article makes an 'original contribution' by collating pre-existing knowledge. I would suggest including in the WP an explicit acknowledgment of the difference between the Wikipedia meaning of 'NOR' and the possible implications of the phrase for professional academics and graduate students, especially historians. I think this might help to bring more subject specialists into Wikipedia, ensuring that its historical articles conform to the highest scholarly standards. Happydemic 03:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I have been experiencing a need today to express similar thoughts to George, independently of you guys, and, I suspect, thousands of miles to your east. I've never really liked the sound of the NOR thing, it always sounded like navel-obsessed project anoraks making trouble for themselves. Recently I coined a couple of acronyms which I find necessary in my area of research - linguistics - put them on disambiguation pages, and nobody has objected. The thing I could prove is the need for them, and the fact that one of them has been used elsewhere (by myself!). I looked into the history of the policy on the article page, and at once understood. Yes, modern physics does have cranks with crackpot theories, common sense seems to tell you that, but perhaps the latter's not all that common. I think Wiki chair Jim Wales is a shrewd judge of these matters to highlight the problem, but to me, this should have resulted in giving him a stake in the modern physics debate, qualified or not, rather than a desire and a mission to persecute genuine original research. And there is a contradiction in the birth of the policy: surely Wales's perception that some physics theories were cranky, a perception shared by myself and no doubt many others, is itself original research - and none the worse for it!?
I think Precis hit a nail on the head, also: 'Just think of V, NPOV, and NOR as the Trinity.' Authoritarians tend to nurture, promote and protect rules uncritically out of all proportion to their humble provenance, till they become just like another kind of cult - we must watch out for this, not just the things we've been told to watch out for.
I'm with you, George - and for research and originality - yes, even in an online encyclopedia, with no immediate prospect of payment, recognition, or reward. -- Etaonsh 20:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I've created a new section - Proposal: State that "no original research" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia - for discussion of the wording I proposed above, which GeorgeLouis and BTfromLA appeared to support. Please have a look and accept or reject, or make suggestions for amendment. This wording does not address many of the issues raised in this discussion, but it does aim to clarify the question of information collation. Happydemic 17:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess that my main problem with the ban on "original research" is that it really seems too authoritarian and closed-minded. After all, the whole idea of wikipedia is to be *different* from paper encyclopedias, it isnt just a matter of it being on the internet, the whole spirit of the internet is open-mindedness and belief in the public's ability to sort things out on their own, *without* a god-like authority repressing everyone supposedly "to help them". Since anyone can easily edit any page, what is the big deal with original research? If somebody disagrees with it, or has a source that disargees, they can just write that into the article. I think that would be by far the more democratic and the greatly easier and much less power-driven way to deal with "original research". Unfortunately while the page on "No Original Research" pretends to be open-minded, it's clear from the comments of the wikipedia founder about the policy designed against "cranks" and "trolls" that its anything but open-minded - the fact is that these editors really do assume anything which is not "verifiable" from a "reliable" source is somehow false or crazy, and that only an insane person would ever post it. That really does seem the core assumption involved, an assumption which is very anti-thetical to the whole meaning of the internet, and to my mind, wikipedia as well. So to repeat, i really wish wikipedia would get rid of the ban on "original research" for many reasons, having to do first of all with the *very* fuzzy definition of "original research", it seems to be based on a very arbitrary and subjective point of view, secondly, the points made earlier by someone that you can easily point to examples of "original research" to some extent in all wikipedia articles, and thirdly the very vague nature of what is a "reliable" source. Fourthly, the solution is to just allow everyone to edit all the articles, that way if someone thinks some "original research" is erroneous they can just try to prove their point, this could lead to a constructive approach which over time, with many many users and many many attempts, would produce a way better article. Sometimes someone might have an idea which definitely does belong in an encyclopedia even if they dont necessasrily have access to multiple "reliable" sources. It is an errant assumption to think that the meaning of "reliable" can be known objectively. Thanks, thats all i had to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacking Lack ( talk • contribs)
Yes i was glad that the person at least tried to give me some tips or hints but i still think that my original point stands, just telling someone they need to "digest" is not really a good answer to their complex argumentation about something. Perhaps i was just wrong about what i thought wikipedia was, i really do enjoy reading the articles sometimes, and i have learned a lot from wikipedia and maybe you are right that the risk of crazy people is too great to permit "unverified claims" but it just seems so robotic and bland if all we are allowed to do is basically repeat what someone else has already said for our articles. It would seem that wikipedia-formation could almost be mechanized. Lacking Lack 07:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)