![]() | 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. |
Maureen, Moved the draft to the project page. So discussion of it can take place here. : ChrisG 12:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See also:
I want to propose that wikipedia is not a "secondary" source either. I think the definition of primary sources and secondary sources must be cleared up.
A primary source is the crudest product of research (whether an archeological dig, a trip to an archive, or an experiment): an historical artefact (the Bayeaux Tapestry; Josephus's Antiguities, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, transcripts of the Nixon White House tapes) or the first record of experimental data (a data-base with seplies to questionnaires; readings from a mass spectrometer, amino acid analyzer, or high pressure liquid cromatograph).
A secondary source is the presented or published analysis of primary sources: a paper presented at a conference; an article in a peer-reviewed journal; a book published by an academic press. These sources do not just present data, but present original scholarly analysis or interpretation of data.
Wikipedia should not try to be a secondary source, as I have defined it. It is a tertiary source only, in which we provide accounts of secondary sources including debates among authors of secondary sources, or describe secondary sources that are themselves analyzing other secondary sources (for example, an article on the history or science).
I think this scheme works for other things. A movie is a primary source, a critical review is a secondary source; wikipedia is not a place for actual critical reviews of movies, but can report on published reviews.
People might quibble with the semantics -- I am not married to the terms "primary," "secondary," and "tertiary" source, or even the word source. But I do think we are dealing with three different forms of knowledge, and Wikipedia should limit itself to the third kind. That the policy currently allows for the second kind I think leads to confusion. Slrubenstein
Re: Snowspinner's comment -- I am not sure how to respond. As you say, what you put into Wikipedia is already "mediated" by a news outlet (which itself is getting raw data from somewhere else) -- this is my main point. But perhpas we have to make a distinction between "news" or "current events" articles and others. I certainly am referring primarily to academic/scholarly topics. I know it would be nice to have one policy that fits all, but given your comment, that may not be possible. Slrubenstein
Re: Alterprise's comment -- as I said, I am sure that the distinction I am making is important, but I am not married to the terminology. So if you want to introduce other terms, that is fine with me. Obviously in the proposal I made, I would consider the material you are working from "secondary sources" and your article in Wikipedia would certainly be legitimate. You claim that this is not current academic usage. Well, it is and it isn't. All articles in peer-reviewed history journals are secondary sources; the primary sources are the documents (serving as data) they draw on. I was just making an analogy to research in the natural sciences -- you can call published articles on original research "primary" sources if you want to (and I am not arguing against a convention) but the fact remains those "primary" sources are themselves based on earlier (think about what the word primary means) sources. You say that the lab book or pile of questionnaires is generally not recognized, and there is one reason for that: when it comes to experiments that are easily reproducable, no one really cares about the original lab data because people will simply try to reproduce the experiment several times and if it works, the claims of the researcher are established. But this is changing for a few reasons. First of all, some research requires very expensive equipment and is not easily reproducible. Second, there are cases where the research is called into question (e.g. the famous David Baltimore case) where people had to go back to the original note-books. Also, in the social sciences this distinction is very common. There are "data-bases" that constitute primary sources of information generally culled from questionaires and stored in spread-sheets, which different researchs may draw on to analyze in different ways to produce their articles. As is the case with history articles, many articles based on original research (which in this case involves applying different statistical operations to the database) in criminology, sociology, and political science are "secondary sources." Now, if you are saying that there are also sciences where these terms are not used, fine by me. All I ask is that you recognize the conceptual distinction. Call them what you will -- x, y, and z. The current policy allows wikipedia articles to be y or z, and I am saying the articles should only be z. (again, I am excluding news/current events articles). Alterpise, if you are only quibbling over terminology I ask you to help me come up with more acceptable terms. Slrubenstein
My quibble was only terminology. I acknowledge your schema makes perfect sense-- I just didn't think it was academic common usage-- the major publishing distinction is "original research" or "secondary material" when it comes to things like tenure, etc. Maybe it's just a matter of context. I didn't check the terms in wikipedia and I should have. I did check the first couple of google hits I got on googling "primary source research" to confirm someone else used the terms that way, and I wasn't imagining it. I quoted the first one above. I guess I'd call "original research records" what you are calling "primary source." I'll go with the group on this one, though. What does primary and secondary mean to rest of you? alteripse 23:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Today I created User:Maurreen/Basic topics to list a small selection of core topics. Wikipedia talk:Pushing to 1.0and other pages in Category:Editorial validation might be appropriate for Apwoolrich 's concerns. Maurreen 00:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added another criterion to the definition of original research: it purports to present a refutation of some other idea, often one presented previously in the same article. The underlying idea that is being refuted may very well be nonsense, but that does not justify the use of even more nonsense to prove it wrong. Often those with a scientific hostility to an idea have never taken the time to study it adequately. There is a big difference between the perfectly acceptable claim that an idea is not adequately proven, and claiming its disproof. Disproving these ideas may require research in excess of the time available for doing it. Eclecticology 21:14, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
Contemplating the previous discussion and the mailing list one [2], it occurs to me that the policy has the wrong title, and is creating confusion. It should be more tightly worded and be: No original theories.: ChrisG 12:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Theory" actually means many very different things across disciplines -- I have seen academics with different training try to have a conversation using the word and ending with disaster. I was hoping that rather than ChrisG ask me to reformulate my proposal, he and others would help me -- do it collaboratively. Maurreen understands exactly my point. There are two issues here: terminology, plus the fact that Wikipedia has different kinds of articles. When someone summarizes a book or article, are they even claiming to do research? I think the first thing to do is to define the policy more narrowly, and then to see what would be involved in broadening it, or in developing a second policy for sifferent kinds of articles. But let me give an immediate example. I am engaged in a series of disputes concerning the cultural background of Jesus. The article, everyone seems to agree, is meant to provide information about the culture/time/place when Jesus is presumed to have lived. The NT mentions Saducees and Pharisees, as do widely available works by Josephus, who wrote around the same time the earliest sources of the NT were probably written. So the article is going to have a section on "Saducees" and "Pharisees." The NT and Josephus are clearly primary sources. Should a Wikipedia editor just cobble together an account of Pharisees and Saducees based on their reading of these sources?
I have no problem with an editor writing, "According to Matthew, the Pharisees ..." or "According to Josephus (Antiquities) the Pharisees were ..." The problem is, no historian today thinks either of these sources can be taken literally. Most editors invilved in the project believe strongly that the NT cannot be taken literally, although some of them think Josephus can be. In any event, some interpretation is called for -- what biases may be acting on these sources; what might Josephus's account of the Pharisees actually reveal about Josephus; and so on. Perhaps from these two sources we can synthesize a "compromise" account of what the Pharisees were like. I do have a strong problem with Wikipedians making any of these interpretive claims, or trying to come up with a synthetic account.
I believe that making such interpretive claims, or synthesizing from different sources, is the job of a professional historian, Biblie scholar, or Classicist. Many such scholars have published articles an books in which they critically analyze the NT and Josephus, and in which they draw, critically, on these and other sources to make claims about the Pharisees. What do we call these books or articles? Secondary sources? Something else? As I said, I do not want to quibble over words and I am happy with whatever consensus we reach (and Chris G is welcome to make suggestions). My point is simply that it is not the place of a Wikipedian to write such an article in Wikipedia; the research a Wikipedian should do should involve looking for such previously published books and articles. And I have no objection at all to an editor writing, "According to Jacob Neusner, the Pharisees ..." or "According to Paula Fredriksen, Matthew's account of the Pharisees is biased ...." or "E.P. Sanders has summarized current research and has argued that the Pharisees ..." Now, a Wikipedia article that includes such statements is what I mean by tertiary research. But as I said, I do not want to quibble over terminology and if there is some other standard, or if Chris G. and others can come up with one, I am fine with that.
To sum up: I think if we want to maintain high standards concerning any subject that is a matter of academic research, we should exclude unattributed (original) interpretive and synthetic statements. Slrubenstein
Thanks. Obviously, I am taking a long time to express myself because I am also trying to sort out what I think. I have a deneral unease about blanket rules too. And in fact I think all policies on wikipedia demand some play of interpretation and negotiation, even NPOV. Yet, I think we would all agree to a committment to NPOV even if sometimes we disagree over what it is or how it is achieved. I want the same committment to this standard, even if there is some play about how to achieve it. But let me ask you -- can you think of examples (involving topics of scholarly research, not news items) where applying my rule literally and directly would do harm or limit the success of the endeavor? Slrubenstein
Fair enough. The question is, where to go from here? For starts, I have a real problem with the third sentence of the article:
One possibility is simply to write,
Does anyone have any objections to this? If not, can we call for a poll? Slrubenstein
Your suggestions are good, and I don't mind waiting for more suggestions/discussion (as long as this one item doesn't get lost -- I think it is my major issue with the policy in its current form) Slrubenstein
Stan makes good points, similar to Fred's points below -- definitely needs thinking through. Slrubenstein
I strongly disagree with ChrisG. Wikipedia should never be a primary source; I think he means it is a secondary source when it comes to current events and I never objected to that; it is clearly not the point I am making and perhaps ChrisG is raising a red-herring. But since he brings up current events: Wikipedia is not a blog and wikipedians are not reporters. If we want to be a secondary source on current events -- drawing on primary sources like UP or AP or Reuters wires, I have no objections. But my main point concerns not repeat not news and current events but rather articles on scholarly topics. ChrisG states that Wikipedia is a secondary source; this is a factual claim and I agree with him -- as does our current policy. But I am proposing a policy change and arguing it should not be a secondary source. I have given my reasons. Slrubenstein
Are you not reading what I wrote, trying to be obstructionist, or trying to pick a fight? I have consistently, repeatedly, said I am talking about a policy for articles on scholarly topics. Do you get it? By saying this, I mean that I am not talking about articles on non-scholarly topics. So what is your point? Slrubenstein
Which part of the sentence -- to which you are ostensibly responding -- do you not understand: "But my main point concerns not repeat not news and current events but rather articles on scholarly topics." Slrubenstein
Apwoolrich at least explains why s/he wants to allow articles to be secondary sources, but I strongly disagree with him/her. S/he writes: "The way that MediaWiki operates makes it possible to compose an article and publish it so bypassing the regular journal or book route." Now, I do not want to argue about Wikimedia and bypassing peer-reviewed journals and books. But the current policy explicitly argues against this use of Wikipedia, and explains why, and I agree 100%: Wikipedia is not a venue for people who cannot get their ideas (interpretations, analyses, theories) published elsewhere. Articles should report on accepted knowledge or major debates, and this means drawing on secondary sources. Slrubenstein
I looked at the draft and think that the third paragraph should be replaced with:
And that Stan and Fred's concerns should be addressed later in the article. Slrubenstein
I take issue with the style, but basically think your suggestions are good. Would you be satisfied with,
Thanks for the clarification. I guess we just have different views over how wikipedia works. Just as no one owns an article, I don't really think I "own" my proposal -- I put it on the talk page precisely for people to discuss and even change it. I thought if you saw a problem with the specific wording, you would just have proposed different wording. Eventually, you did, then I suggested other wording -- I think we are making progress and this is what I think collaboration is all about, Slrubenstein
Should this discussion move to Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite)? Maurreen 05:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Maureen, Moved the draft to the project page. So discussion of it can take place here. : ChrisG 12:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See also:
I want to propose that wikipedia is not a "secondary" source either. I think the definition of primary sources and secondary sources must be cleared up.
A primary source is the crudest product of research (whether an archeological dig, a trip to an archive, or an experiment): an historical artefact (the Bayeaux Tapestry; Josephus's Antiguities, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, transcripts of the Nixon White House tapes) or the first record of experimental data (a data-base with seplies to questionnaires; readings from a mass spectrometer, amino acid analyzer, or high pressure liquid cromatograph).
A secondary source is the presented or published analysis of primary sources: a paper presented at a conference; an article in a peer-reviewed journal; a book published by an academic press. These sources do not just present data, but present original scholarly analysis or interpretation of data.
Wikipedia should not try to be a secondary source, as I have defined it. It is a tertiary source only, in which we provide accounts of secondary sources including debates among authors of secondary sources, or describe secondary sources that are themselves analyzing other secondary sources (for example, an article on the history or science).
I think this scheme works for other things. A movie is a primary source, a critical review is a secondary source; wikipedia is not a place for actual critical reviews of movies, but can report on published reviews.
People might quibble with the semantics -- I am not married to the terms "primary," "secondary," and "tertiary" source, or even the word source. But I do think we are dealing with three different forms of knowledge, and Wikipedia should limit itself to the third kind. That the policy currently allows for the second kind I think leads to confusion. Slrubenstein
Re: Snowspinner's comment -- I am not sure how to respond. As you say, what you put into Wikipedia is already "mediated" by a news outlet (which itself is getting raw data from somewhere else) -- this is my main point. But perhpas we have to make a distinction between "news" or "current events" articles and others. I certainly am referring primarily to academic/scholarly topics. I know it would be nice to have one policy that fits all, but given your comment, that may not be possible. Slrubenstein
Re: Alterprise's comment -- as I said, I am sure that the distinction I am making is important, but I am not married to the terminology. So if you want to introduce other terms, that is fine with me. Obviously in the proposal I made, I would consider the material you are working from "secondary sources" and your article in Wikipedia would certainly be legitimate. You claim that this is not current academic usage. Well, it is and it isn't. All articles in peer-reviewed history journals are secondary sources; the primary sources are the documents (serving as data) they draw on. I was just making an analogy to research in the natural sciences -- you can call published articles on original research "primary" sources if you want to (and I am not arguing against a convention) but the fact remains those "primary" sources are themselves based on earlier (think about what the word primary means) sources. You say that the lab book or pile of questionnaires is generally not recognized, and there is one reason for that: when it comes to experiments that are easily reproducable, no one really cares about the original lab data because people will simply try to reproduce the experiment several times and if it works, the claims of the researcher are established. But this is changing for a few reasons. First of all, some research requires very expensive equipment and is not easily reproducible. Second, there are cases where the research is called into question (e.g. the famous David Baltimore case) where people had to go back to the original note-books. Also, in the social sciences this distinction is very common. There are "data-bases" that constitute primary sources of information generally culled from questionaires and stored in spread-sheets, which different researchs may draw on to analyze in different ways to produce their articles. As is the case with history articles, many articles based on original research (which in this case involves applying different statistical operations to the database) in criminology, sociology, and political science are "secondary sources." Now, if you are saying that there are also sciences where these terms are not used, fine by me. All I ask is that you recognize the conceptual distinction. Call them what you will -- x, y, and z. The current policy allows wikipedia articles to be y or z, and I am saying the articles should only be z. (again, I am excluding news/current events articles). Alterpise, if you are only quibbling over terminology I ask you to help me come up with more acceptable terms. Slrubenstein
My quibble was only terminology. I acknowledge your schema makes perfect sense-- I just didn't think it was academic common usage-- the major publishing distinction is "original research" or "secondary material" when it comes to things like tenure, etc. Maybe it's just a matter of context. I didn't check the terms in wikipedia and I should have. I did check the first couple of google hits I got on googling "primary source research" to confirm someone else used the terms that way, and I wasn't imagining it. I quoted the first one above. I guess I'd call "original research records" what you are calling "primary source." I'll go with the group on this one, though. What does primary and secondary mean to rest of you? alteripse 23:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Today I created User:Maurreen/Basic topics to list a small selection of core topics. Wikipedia talk:Pushing to 1.0and other pages in Category:Editorial validation might be appropriate for Apwoolrich 's concerns. Maurreen 00:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added another criterion to the definition of original research: it purports to present a refutation of some other idea, often one presented previously in the same article. The underlying idea that is being refuted may very well be nonsense, but that does not justify the use of even more nonsense to prove it wrong. Often those with a scientific hostility to an idea have never taken the time to study it adequately. There is a big difference between the perfectly acceptable claim that an idea is not adequately proven, and claiming its disproof. Disproving these ideas may require research in excess of the time available for doing it. Eclecticology 21:14, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
Contemplating the previous discussion and the mailing list one [2], it occurs to me that the policy has the wrong title, and is creating confusion. It should be more tightly worded and be: No original theories.: ChrisG 12:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Theory" actually means many very different things across disciplines -- I have seen academics with different training try to have a conversation using the word and ending with disaster. I was hoping that rather than ChrisG ask me to reformulate my proposal, he and others would help me -- do it collaboratively. Maurreen understands exactly my point. There are two issues here: terminology, plus the fact that Wikipedia has different kinds of articles. When someone summarizes a book or article, are they even claiming to do research? I think the first thing to do is to define the policy more narrowly, and then to see what would be involved in broadening it, or in developing a second policy for sifferent kinds of articles. But let me give an immediate example. I am engaged in a series of disputes concerning the cultural background of Jesus. The article, everyone seems to agree, is meant to provide information about the culture/time/place when Jesus is presumed to have lived. The NT mentions Saducees and Pharisees, as do widely available works by Josephus, who wrote around the same time the earliest sources of the NT were probably written. So the article is going to have a section on "Saducees" and "Pharisees." The NT and Josephus are clearly primary sources. Should a Wikipedia editor just cobble together an account of Pharisees and Saducees based on their reading of these sources?
I have no problem with an editor writing, "According to Matthew, the Pharisees ..." or "According to Josephus (Antiquities) the Pharisees were ..." The problem is, no historian today thinks either of these sources can be taken literally. Most editors invilved in the project believe strongly that the NT cannot be taken literally, although some of them think Josephus can be. In any event, some interpretation is called for -- what biases may be acting on these sources; what might Josephus's account of the Pharisees actually reveal about Josephus; and so on. Perhaps from these two sources we can synthesize a "compromise" account of what the Pharisees were like. I do have a strong problem with Wikipedians making any of these interpretive claims, or trying to come up with a synthetic account.
I believe that making such interpretive claims, or synthesizing from different sources, is the job of a professional historian, Biblie scholar, or Classicist. Many such scholars have published articles an books in which they critically analyze the NT and Josephus, and in which they draw, critically, on these and other sources to make claims about the Pharisees. What do we call these books or articles? Secondary sources? Something else? As I said, I do not want to quibble over words and I am happy with whatever consensus we reach (and Chris G is welcome to make suggestions). My point is simply that it is not the place of a Wikipedian to write such an article in Wikipedia; the research a Wikipedian should do should involve looking for such previously published books and articles. And I have no objection at all to an editor writing, "According to Jacob Neusner, the Pharisees ..." or "According to Paula Fredriksen, Matthew's account of the Pharisees is biased ...." or "E.P. Sanders has summarized current research and has argued that the Pharisees ..." Now, a Wikipedia article that includes such statements is what I mean by tertiary research. But as I said, I do not want to quibble over terminology and if there is some other standard, or if Chris G. and others can come up with one, I am fine with that.
To sum up: I think if we want to maintain high standards concerning any subject that is a matter of academic research, we should exclude unattributed (original) interpretive and synthetic statements. Slrubenstein
Thanks. Obviously, I am taking a long time to express myself because I am also trying to sort out what I think. I have a deneral unease about blanket rules too. And in fact I think all policies on wikipedia demand some play of interpretation and negotiation, even NPOV. Yet, I think we would all agree to a committment to NPOV even if sometimes we disagree over what it is or how it is achieved. I want the same committment to this standard, even if there is some play about how to achieve it. But let me ask you -- can you think of examples (involving topics of scholarly research, not news items) where applying my rule literally and directly would do harm or limit the success of the endeavor? Slrubenstein
Fair enough. The question is, where to go from here? For starts, I have a real problem with the third sentence of the article:
One possibility is simply to write,
Does anyone have any objections to this? If not, can we call for a poll? Slrubenstein
Your suggestions are good, and I don't mind waiting for more suggestions/discussion (as long as this one item doesn't get lost -- I think it is my major issue with the policy in its current form) Slrubenstein
Stan makes good points, similar to Fred's points below -- definitely needs thinking through. Slrubenstein
I strongly disagree with ChrisG. Wikipedia should never be a primary source; I think he means it is a secondary source when it comes to current events and I never objected to that; it is clearly not the point I am making and perhaps ChrisG is raising a red-herring. But since he brings up current events: Wikipedia is not a blog and wikipedians are not reporters. If we want to be a secondary source on current events -- drawing on primary sources like UP or AP or Reuters wires, I have no objections. But my main point concerns not repeat not news and current events but rather articles on scholarly topics. ChrisG states that Wikipedia is a secondary source; this is a factual claim and I agree with him -- as does our current policy. But I am proposing a policy change and arguing it should not be a secondary source. I have given my reasons. Slrubenstein
Are you not reading what I wrote, trying to be obstructionist, or trying to pick a fight? I have consistently, repeatedly, said I am talking about a policy for articles on scholarly topics. Do you get it? By saying this, I mean that I am not talking about articles on non-scholarly topics. So what is your point? Slrubenstein
Which part of the sentence -- to which you are ostensibly responding -- do you not understand: "But my main point concerns not repeat not news and current events but rather articles on scholarly topics." Slrubenstein
Apwoolrich at least explains why s/he wants to allow articles to be secondary sources, but I strongly disagree with him/her. S/he writes: "The way that MediaWiki operates makes it possible to compose an article and publish it so bypassing the regular journal or book route." Now, I do not want to argue about Wikimedia and bypassing peer-reviewed journals and books. But the current policy explicitly argues against this use of Wikipedia, and explains why, and I agree 100%: Wikipedia is not a venue for people who cannot get their ideas (interpretations, analyses, theories) published elsewhere. Articles should report on accepted knowledge or major debates, and this means drawing on secondary sources. Slrubenstein
I looked at the draft and think that the third paragraph should be replaced with:
And that Stan and Fred's concerns should be addressed later in the article. Slrubenstein
I take issue with the style, but basically think your suggestions are good. Would you be satisfied with,
Thanks for the clarification. I guess we just have different views over how wikipedia works. Just as no one owns an article, I don't really think I "own" my proposal -- I put it on the talk page precisely for people to discuss and even change it. I thought if you saw a problem with the specific wording, you would just have proposed different wording. Eventually, you did, then I suggested other wording -- I think we are making progress and this is what I think collaboration is all about, Slrubenstein
Should this discussion move to Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite)? Maurreen 05:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)