![]() | This page 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. |
Index
|
||||
Are we ready to open this up to wider review, such as via RFC and the Village Pump? Maurreen 05:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think the draft was better when it gave examples in the intro. Doing so made it more clear. Maurreen 07:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It was taken out a while ago; no biggie. I just put it back. Maurreen 05:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the examples can be tweaked, maybe like this: "The phrase 'original research' in this context can include untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas ..." Maurreen 06:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
They are further up this page, here. Maurreen 06:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sirubenstein, you put the sources section back in the intro. I strongly disagree with this, as it's largely meaningless, because it seems to confuse three things: (a) a general description of what historians regard as different categories of sources; (b) a description of what kind of sources Wikipedia editors ought to use; and (c) a description of what kind of source Wikipedia is. In addition, the first sentence is meaningless. What does: "More specifically, original research usually takes the form of primary sources or secondary sources" mean? It isn't correct English. "Research" doesn't "take the form of" sources. I would like to revert back to the previous version unless someone can explain. SlimVirgin 21:34, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
It still makes no sense:
This means we're saying: (a) original research is not allowed; (b) original research is research that relies on e.g. photographs, historical documents such as a diary, and sources that present inter alia an analysis of information or data; ergo (c) none of (b) is allowed.
That rules out a lot of material that Wikipedia editors could use. For example, if a transcript of a court case is made available, you're saying Wikipedia can't refer to it. This section needs to go, because it's wrong and will cause a lot of confusion. Can you express what you want to say differently? As it stands, I honestly can't see what you mean.
"Original research" is simply material that has not been published in a reputable publication, with the qualification that the word "reputable" is not a precise term. It doesn't matter what kind of sources its based on. It could be based on primary, secondary or even tertiary sources. Anything that is (i) based on unpublished data; (ii) based on published data but analysed or synthesized in a novel way; or (iii) based on a disreputable or dodgy publication (e.g. the house journal of a fascist cult, except where discussion of what that cult believes is strictly relevant), is "original research". SlimVirgin 23:34, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
The section entitled What counts as a reputable publication? goes far beyond the current principle of Wikipedia:No original research, as I see it, in suggesting that Wikipedia as a whole discriminate among its sources on grounds of mass approval, editorial and administrative structure, et cetera. I disagree strongly with this principle in its current unqualified form. Why not keep the draft rewrite closer to the current guideline in scope, remove that section, and introduce use reputable sources as a separate proposed guideline for discussion in the policy thinktank? It might be more easily disentangled from the rest of the rewrite discussion that way. -- Rbellin| Talk 00:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I hold that the only important criterion for judging sources is relevance. The rest can be settled on a case-by-case basis just as Wikipedia has been doing for some time now; there is no urgent need for more codified rules, and the last thing I'd like would be for guidelines about "reputable" sources to scare off even one editor, or keep even one citation from being entered. This guideline seems like an overreaching attempt to make rules for every situation; it is my belief that Wikipedia thrives on openness, and that most of its problems are quite resistant to legislated solutions. (Also, the draft is quite unclear about what you call "just an example": that "ask yourself..." paragraph looks like a part of the guideline to me.)
POV pushers and cranks such as the one you mention above are certainly not going to be bothered by sourcing guidelines (and anyway, the NPOV version of that edit would have been to add "a Guardian letter-writer believed it not to be a democracy," not to delete the text). Go ahead and set up that research company web site, and try to cite it on Wikipedia; your citations will almost certainly be deleted as self-promotion, spam, or irrelevant -- unless they are useful and intelligent enough that they actually contribute value to Wikipedia as sources. The community already does a pretty good job of filtering out useless contributions; a more restrictive guideline will likely discourage some of the useful ones.
Further, I disagree that partisan, small, or independent sources are either "disreputable" or undesirable as sources (in all, or even most, cases). I do not believe Wikipedia should be in the business of assessing other organizations' reputability in the first place. And I find the specific examples in the draft distastefully suggestive of political litmus-testing, when relevance and the specific evidence produced in support of a claim are what matters. Again: if you want to introduce this as a guideline, I'd suggest you separate it from the "no original research" draft and let it be discussed in a separate place, where it can achieve or fail to achieve its own consensus. -- Rbellin| Talk 06:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think "any source is acceptable" -- in fact, anything (short of egregious antisociality) is acceptable -- is the greatest strength of Wikipedia; peer-editor review can correct many problems, and any citation at all is always, always better than none. I'm leaving the specific Israel example aside, as I think it's not quite to the point and don't want to get into a long side discussion.
The very most I'd be comfortable agreeing with as a general rule for all of Wikipedia would be something like: "Try to cite sources that are as widely available, relevant, and credible as possible." I have been thinking about this concern for a while, since I believe it's not a matter that a general rule can help with very much. I think "reputable" is a distraction from the issue: the most general question is is the source credible? -- and the guideline should never discourage citation. Instead, it should encourage citations that are as relevant and credible as possible; this means that we encourage citations from authors or publishers with (a) direct knowledge, (b) field expertise, or (c) stringent fact-checking policies, when such sources are available.
It is still my opinion that the best way to get a strong guideline on what kinds of sources are preferred over others would be to create a separate proposed guideline page and open it up for discussion. Lumping it in with the two very central pages on original research and citation means that the question gets jumbled up with many, many others. I have said enough by now; so feel free to take or discard my opinion on this, and I invite others to contribute theirs. -- Rbellin| Talk 05:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Rbellin, as this discussion is taking place on the Cite sources page where several other editors have joined in, I'm going to copy your comment onto that page too. Best, SlimVirgin 06:25, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not just a tertiary resource.
In my article on Hrafnkels saga I have a synopsis of the saga. How did I write it? I just read the saga myself and summarized it from there. This makes my synopsis a secondary resource on Hrafnkels saga. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Nor do I see any value in distinguishing sharply between scholarly and non-scholarly subjects.
Haukurth 15:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do we have a plan about what we are doing? I know I haven't been active in the discussions, recently -- but I care very much about the work being done here. I happen to think the opening section is now very, very good. What are our priorities now, for finishing this?
I have a set of questions about the state of the discussion here, because sooner or latter (I think sooner) we should try to make this the new version.
(1) As SlimVirgin remarks, we have removed the stuff on "tertiary" sources. That term is used in the current active policy. Should we include something on tertiary in the opening? What should we say?
(2) I have a reservation about this:
I think it opens up a can of worms. I think we should dump the first sentence and keep the second. People may still use unpublished things, but I don't want to put ideas in their heads, especially when the opening section is so clear.
(2) I have a reservation about this:
I agree with it, but we do have a space for current affairs. I think we need to explain something about how that space works, so as not to confuse people. I also think a major problem here is some people who like to write personal essays, so maybe the stuff on no "personal journals, weblogs" etc. could be expanded.
I just think we should make this clearer in the draft. Do you have any ideas? I think you know more about journalism than I do and could come up with a clearer explanation of our policy. Slrubenstein 17:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(3) The section on verifiability is very very long. I know some people disagree strongly with me, but I think that the section should be as short as possible with a link to the verification article. I absolutely agreed that these two are linked, I just don't think we should cram everything in here. Rather than trying to help people avoid actually going to thee verification policy page, here is my proposal: we finish this up, and then turn our attentions exclusively to the verification policy and see if (how) we can improve that one, next.
As you know, I agree completely that verifiability is important. My point was purely structural. Well, we just have to agree to disagree. I would like to know what others think about this. And there is one thing I'd ask you to think about: are you saying that "verifiability" should not have its own page (that the concept is entirely subordinate to "no original research?" If this is not what you are saying, I encourage you to say more about what must be on this page, versus what must be on another policy page. Slrubenstein 17:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Basically, I see organizing this into four parts: the opening section; section two as kind of a tutorial helping newbies figure out what they should do. Okay, we have a list of what they shouldn't; can we give them models to encourage them in the right direction? I see the next three parts as very brief explanations of the two other policies I think bear most directly on this article: verification and NPOV -- a paragraph each with a link and a warning that going over those policies carefully will help them make sense of this one, and save them grief in the long run.
Thanks, Slrubenstein 23:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
One thing is, these two statements seem to contradict each other.
Uh, so you are agreeing with the point I made above? I made a specific proposal -- are you saying you support what I proposed? Slrubenstein 17:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My strictness on which issue? SlimVirgin 08:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
I think the following is important, and we should bear it in mind regarding every policy and guideline we edit: SlimVirgin 08:20, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
I take it that you are referring to this:
I would be OK with deleting the first sentence if the intro examples are tweaked. (And I realize I supported them earlier.)
The intro examples are now:
Here's another example: U.S. Marines and soldiers both wear a camouflage uniform. It is very similar, but not the same. The uniform regulations for each service are documented, but I know of no published comparison. A strict interpretation of the above paragraph would mean that I couldn't write that the uniforms are different. Maurreen 17:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Maurreen, I beg to differ. If one were to read only the first two sentences, they might think this, but if they keep reading they will see a statement that says something like "if no interpretive, synthetic etc. claims are made, original sources are enough" and it gives the apple pie example. You may think this could be reworded to be more direct, or that we provide more examples, or give other criteria, but currently the introduction does not say that primary sources are never allowed. Slrubenstein
Yes, I see that, but I'm wondering what you perceive the important difference to be. What difference will it make to you, in other words? SlimVirgin 09:28, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
I can't work out what this sentence is saying: "Although it is our hope that readers research a variety of topics will turn to Wikipedia, one way that contributors to its articles can achieve a high level of quality is to draw on well-established previous research." SlimVirgin 07:36, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
I like your new sentence Sl. I still have a query about the second para though, particularly the first sentence:
What do we mean by it taking the form of? Do we mean: "Original research can be based either on primary or secondary sources"? SlimVirgin 22:33, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Should the following from capitalism be deleted according to the new guidelines?
Should it be deleted as "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation" of "primary" sources? Ultramarine 17:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You are misreading the very passage you quote. It does not say that income data is evidence against capitalism. It says that some people believe that income data is evidence against capitalism. This is actually a completely different claim. It is not a claim about capitalism, it is a claim about a group of people. Slrubenstein 18:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you insist on claiming that even a summary is an interpretation, then I will just have to point out to you that in the policy "interpretation" is being used in a much narrower way. Your own interpretation is a misinterpretation. Slrubenstein 18:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please just look it up in a good English dictionary. This discussion isnot worth it. If we accept your definition of "interpretation," then every article would have to be deleted. Such a proposal is far from constructive; it is effectively trolling. If you have some constructive point to make here, some way to help us do what we want to do more effectively, please tell us what it is. Slrubenstein 18:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I think all the articles in Wikipedia have and must have some degree of interpretation. All facts should be supported from outside sources, if demanded. The only theories in Wikipedia should be those held by "many" people or an authority. But some interpretation and discussion of these theories in Wikipedia is inevitable. Therefore the guidelines cannot just decide which information to allow or not to allow. It must also be guidelines for this discussion and interpretation. One such guideline might be that one cannot argue against "stronger" arguments. A hierarchy might be
1. Peer-reviewed studies or government statistics 2. Academic press 3. Opinion held an authority 4. Opinion held by many people who are not authorities (5. Opinion held by only one or a few people)
For example, it should not be allowed to argue against peer-reviewed studies by refering to common opinion. In the more controversial topics in Wikipedia, this hierarchy for discussion is already in place by itself. Look for example at capitalism or race and intelligence Ultramarine 18:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I am sympathetic to these ideas -- but many others may see problems in what you propose. I suggest you present this as a real proposal here and also in the talk page for "cite sources" and invite people to respond. Slrubenstein 19:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yikes, four archives of talk pages already? Can you please put a "mission statement" at some prominent place, stating why and with which objectives the whole rewrite thing has started? -- Pjacobi 10:49, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
Okay -- there is still stuff of value in the old policy. I suggest cutting and pasting sections, one at a time. People are always editing the original policy too, so I don't think we need permission as long as we do it little by little, and strive to keep what is still good in the old policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The existing No original research guidelines are fairly clear that original attempts to refute a given position in an article are "original research", yet I don't see that as clearly here. In my experience one of the more significant problems of original research are editors who see a position in an article they don't like, and therefore come up with an argument to refute it. I think we need to make it clear that refutations must also come from published sources, and not just arguments people think up on their own. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party.
Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity out there to stage photos, for example:
Supporters of Candidate A take Candidate B's signs and make a big mess in a parking lot with them and leave also a lot of trash like water bottles and sandwich wrappers.... the Wiki caption for this reads, "trash left behind after local rally for B".
Clearly it's a staged photo intended to make a point. If the control parameter of "intended to make a point" is not enforced, the excuse regarding the above scenario would be "I found the trash & signs in the parking lot and merely snapped the photo". Such assertions could not be disproved, opening a pandora's box of scheming opporunities.
![]() | This page 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. |
Index
|
||||
Are we ready to open this up to wider review, such as via RFC and the Village Pump? Maurreen 05:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think the draft was better when it gave examples in the intro. Doing so made it more clear. Maurreen 07:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It was taken out a while ago; no biggie. I just put it back. Maurreen 05:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the examples can be tweaked, maybe like this: "The phrase 'original research' in this context can include untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas ..." Maurreen 06:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
They are further up this page, here. Maurreen 06:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sirubenstein, you put the sources section back in the intro. I strongly disagree with this, as it's largely meaningless, because it seems to confuse three things: (a) a general description of what historians regard as different categories of sources; (b) a description of what kind of sources Wikipedia editors ought to use; and (c) a description of what kind of source Wikipedia is. In addition, the first sentence is meaningless. What does: "More specifically, original research usually takes the form of primary sources or secondary sources" mean? It isn't correct English. "Research" doesn't "take the form of" sources. I would like to revert back to the previous version unless someone can explain. SlimVirgin 21:34, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
It still makes no sense:
This means we're saying: (a) original research is not allowed; (b) original research is research that relies on e.g. photographs, historical documents such as a diary, and sources that present inter alia an analysis of information or data; ergo (c) none of (b) is allowed.
That rules out a lot of material that Wikipedia editors could use. For example, if a transcript of a court case is made available, you're saying Wikipedia can't refer to it. This section needs to go, because it's wrong and will cause a lot of confusion. Can you express what you want to say differently? As it stands, I honestly can't see what you mean.
"Original research" is simply material that has not been published in a reputable publication, with the qualification that the word "reputable" is not a precise term. It doesn't matter what kind of sources its based on. It could be based on primary, secondary or even tertiary sources. Anything that is (i) based on unpublished data; (ii) based on published data but analysed or synthesized in a novel way; or (iii) based on a disreputable or dodgy publication (e.g. the house journal of a fascist cult, except where discussion of what that cult believes is strictly relevant), is "original research". SlimVirgin 23:34, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
The section entitled What counts as a reputable publication? goes far beyond the current principle of Wikipedia:No original research, as I see it, in suggesting that Wikipedia as a whole discriminate among its sources on grounds of mass approval, editorial and administrative structure, et cetera. I disagree strongly with this principle in its current unqualified form. Why not keep the draft rewrite closer to the current guideline in scope, remove that section, and introduce use reputable sources as a separate proposed guideline for discussion in the policy thinktank? It might be more easily disentangled from the rest of the rewrite discussion that way. -- Rbellin| Talk 00:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I hold that the only important criterion for judging sources is relevance. The rest can be settled on a case-by-case basis just as Wikipedia has been doing for some time now; there is no urgent need for more codified rules, and the last thing I'd like would be for guidelines about "reputable" sources to scare off even one editor, or keep even one citation from being entered. This guideline seems like an overreaching attempt to make rules for every situation; it is my belief that Wikipedia thrives on openness, and that most of its problems are quite resistant to legislated solutions. (Also, the draft is quite unclear about what you call "just an example": that "ask yourself..." paragraph looks like a part of the guideline to me.)
POV pushers and cranks such as the one you mention above are certainly not going to be bothered by sourcing guidelines (and anyway, the NPOV version of that edit would have been to add "a Guardian letter-writer believed it not to be a democracy," not to delete the text). Go ahead and set up that research company web site, and try to cite it on Wikipedia; your citations will almost certainly be deleted as self-promotion, spam, or irrelevant -- unless they are useful and intelligent enough that they actually contribute value to Wikipedia as sources. The community already does a pretty good job of filtering out useless contributions; a more restrictive guideline will likely discourage some of the useful ones.
Further, I disagree that partisan, small, or independent sources are either "disreputable" or undesirable as sources (in all, or even most, cases). I do not believe Wikipedia should be in the business of assessing other organizations' reputability in the first place. And I find the specific examples in the draft distastefully suggestive of political litmus-testing, when relevance and the specific evidence produced in support of a claim are what matters. Again: if you want to introduce this as a guideline, I'd suggest you separate it from the "no original research" draft and let it be discussed in a separate place, where it can achieve or fail to achieve its own consensus. -- Rbellin| Talk 06:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think "any source is acceptable" -- in fact, anything (short of egregious antisociality) is acceptable -- is the greatest strength of Wikipedia; peer-editor review can correct many problems, and any citation at all is always, always better than none. I'm leaving the specific Israel example aside, as I think it's not quite to the point and don't want to get into a long side discussion.
The very most I'd be comfortable agreeing with as a general rule for all of Wikipedia would be something like: "Try to cite sources that are as widely available, relevant, and credible as possible." I have been thinking about this concern for a while, since I believe it's not a matter that a general rule can help with very much. I think "reputable" is a distraction from the issue: the most general question is is the source credible? -- and the guideline should never discourage citation. Instead, it should encourage citations that are as relevant and credible as possible; this means that we encourage citations from authors or publishers with (a) direct knowledge, (b) field expertise, or (c) stringent fact-checking policies, when such sources are available.
It is still my opinion that the best way to get a strong guideline on what kinds of sources are preferred over others would be to create a separate proposed guideline page and open it up for discussion. Lumping it in with the two very central pages on original research and citation means that the question gets jumbled up with many, many others. I have said enough by now; so feel free to take or discard my opinion on this, and I invite others to contribute theirs. -- Rbellin| Talk 05:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Rbellin, as this discussion is taking place on the Cite sources page where several other editors have joined in, I'm going to copy your comment onto that page too. Best, SlimVirgin 06:25, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not just a tertiary resource.
In my article on Hrafnkels saga I have a synopsis of the saga. How did I write it? I just read the saga myself and summarized it from there. This makes my synopsis a secondary resource on Hrafnkels saga. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Nor do I see any value in distinguishing sharply between scholarly and non-scholarly subjects.
Haukurth 15:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do we have a plan about what we are doing? I know I haven't been active in the discussions, recently -- but I care very much about the work being done here. I happen to think the opening section is now very, very good. What are our priorities now, for finishing this?
I have a set of questions about the state of the discussion here, because sooner or latter (I think sooner) we should try to make this the new version.
(1) As SlimVirgin remarks, we have removed the stuff on "tertiary" sources. That term is used in the current active policy. Should we include something on tertiary in the opening? What should we say?
(2) I have a reservation about this:
I think it opens up a can of worms. I think we should dump the first sentence and keep the second. People may still use unpublished things, but I don't want to put ideas in their heads, especially when the opening section is so clear.
(2) I have a reservation about this:
I agree with it, but we do have a space for current affairs. I think we need to explain something about how that space works, so as not to confuse people. I also think a major problem here is some people who like to write personal essays, so maybe the stuff on no "personal journals, weblogs" etc. could be expanded.
I just think we should make this clearer in the draft. Do you have any ideas? I think you know more about journalism than I do and could come up with a clearer explanation of our policy. Slrubenstein 17:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(3) The section on verifiability is very very long. I know some people disagree strongly with me, but I think that the section should be as short as possible with a link to the verification article. I absolutely agreed that these two are linked, I just don't think we should cram everything in here. Rather than trying to help people avoid actually going to thee verification policy page, here is my proposal: we finish this up, and then turn our attentions exclusively to the verification policy and see if (how) we can improve that one, next.
As you know, I agree completely that verifiability is important. My point was purely structural. Well, we just have to agree to disagree. I would like to know what others think about this. And there is one thing I'd ask you to think about: are you saying that "verifiability" should not have its own page (that the concept is entirely subordinate to "no original research?" If this is not what you are saying, I encourage you to say more about what must be on this page, versus what must be on another policy page. Slrubenstein 17:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Basically, I see organizing this into four parts: the opening section; section two as kind of a tutorial helping newbies figure out what they should do. Okay, we have a list of what they shouldn't; can we give them models to encourage them in the right direction? I see the next three parts as very brief explanations of the two other policies I think bear most directly on this article: verification and NPOV -- a paragraph each with a link and a warning that going over those policies carefully will help them make sense of this one, and save them grief in the long run.
Thanks, Slrubenstein 23:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
One thing is, these two statements seem to contradict each other.
Uh, so you are agreeing with the point I made above? I made a specific proposal -- are you saying you support what I proposed? Slrubenstein 17:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My strictness on which issue? SlimVirgin 08:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
I think the following is important, and we should bear it in mind regarding every policy and guideline we edit: SlimVirgin 08:20, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
I take it that you are referring to this:
I would be OK with deleting the first sentence if the intro examples are tweaked. (And I realize I supported them earlier.)
The intro examples are now:
Here's another example: U.S. Marines and soldiers both wear a camouflage uniform. It is very similar, but not the same. The uniform regulations for each service are documented, but I know of no published comparison. A strict interpretation of the above paragraph would mean that I couldn't write that the uniforms are different. Maurreen 17:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Maurreen, I beg to differ. If one were to read only the first two sentences, they might think this, but if they keep reading they will see a statement that says something like "if no interpretive, synthetic etc. claims are made, original sources are enough" and it gives the apple pie example. You may think this could be reworded to be more direct, or that we provide more examples, or give other criteria, but currently the introduction does not say that primary sources are never allowed. Slrubenstein
Yes, I see that, but I'm wondering what you perceive the important difference to be. What difference will it make to you, in other words? SlimVirgin 09:28, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
I can't work out what this sentence is saying: "Although it is our hope that readers research a variety of topics will turn to Wikipedia, one way that contributors to its articles can achieve a high level of quality is to draw on well-established previous research." SlimVirgin 07:36, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
I like your new sentence Sl. I still have a query about the second para though, particularly the first sentence:
What do we mean by it taking the form of? Do we mean: "Original research can be based either on primary or secondary sources"? SlimVirgin 22:33, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Should the following from capitalism be deleted according to the new guidelines?
Should it be deleted as "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation" of "primary" sources? Ultramarine 17:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You are misreading the very passage you quote. It does not say that income data is evidence against capitalism. It says that some people believe that income data is evidence against capitalism. This is actually a completely different claim. It is not a claim about capitalism, it is a claim about a group of people. Slrubenstein 18:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you insist on claiming that even a summary is an interpretation, then I will just have to point out to you that in the policy "interpretation" is being used in a much narrower way. Your own interpretation is a misinterpretation. Slrubenstein 18:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please just look it up in a good English dictionary. This discussion isnot worth it. If we accept your definition of "interpretation," then every article would have to be deleted. Such a proposal is far from constructive; it is effectively trolling. If you have some constructive point to make here, some way to help us do what we want to do more effectively, please tell us what it is. Slrubenstein 18:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I think all the articles in Wikipedia have and must have some degree of interpretation. All facts should be supported from outside sources, if demanded. The only theories in Wikipedia should be those held by "many" people or an authority. But some interpretation and discussion of these theories in Wikipedia is inevitable. Therefore the guidelines cannot just decide which information to allow or not to allow. It must also be guidelines for this discussion and interpretation. One such guideline might be that one cannot argue against "stronger" arguments. A hierarchy might be
1. Peer-reviewed studies or government statistics 2. Academic press 3. Opinion held an authority 4. Opinion held by many people who are not authorities (5. Opinion held by only one or a few people)
For example, it should not be allowed to argue against peer-reviewed studies by refering to common opinion. In the more controversial topics in Wikipedia, this hierarchy for discussion is already in place by itself. Look for example at capitalism or race and intelligence Ultramarine 18:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I am sympathetic to these ideas -- but many others may see problems in what you propose. I suggest you present this as a real proposal here and also in the talk page for "cite sources" and invite people to respond. Slrubenstein 19:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yikes, four archives of talk pages already? Can you please put a "mission statement" at some prominent place, stating why and with which objectives the whole rewrite thing has started? -- Pjacobi 10:49, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
Okay -- there is still stuff of value in the old policy. I suggest cutting and pasting sections, one at a time. People are always editing the original policy too, so I don't think we need permission as long as we do it little by little, and strive to keep what is still good in the old policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The existing No original research guidelines are fairly clear that original attempts to refute a given position in an article are "original research", yet I don't see that as clearly here. In my experience one of the more significant problems of original research are editors who see a position in an article they don't like, and therefore come up with an argument to refute it. I think we need to make it clear that refutations must also come from published sources, and not just arguments people think up on their own. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party.
Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity out there to stage photos, for example:
Supporters of Candidate A take Candidate B's signs and make a big mess in a parking lot with them and leave also a lot of trash like water bottles and sandwich wrappers.... the Wiki caption for this reads, "trash left behind after local rally for B".
Clearly it's a staged photo intended to make a point. If the control parameter of "intended to make a point" is not enforced, the excuse regarding the above scenario would be "I found the trash & signs in the parking lot and merely snapped the photo". Such assertions could not be disproved, opening a pandora's box of scheming opporunities.