User talk:Scottperry/wales

Original Research now equals Original Thought. We need your input.

Dear Jimbo,
For the last few days a huge battle has been waged over at WP:NOR about the correct meaning of NOR. Three well established editors who have basically been running the NOR article for some time, are now claiming that your definition of WP:NOR is no longer applicable, and that it has recently been 'refined' by them into something better. Here is what I mean, please see, "We are more 'specific' now." This 'new Wikipedia policy' according to their own new definition, and in their own words, means that we no longer, "distinguish between original research and original thought." ^source As a result of this new 'expansion of the meaning of original research' that they have defined, now not only are edits and citations being routinely removed if they are incorrectly sourced themselves. Now if any wording or citation might somehow tend to lead a reader to merely "think" a thought that cannot be found nearly verbatim in the edit's supporting citation, it is being routinely removed. A mere unstated implication that the publishing of an edit or source may lead to, is now treated exactly the same as if that mere 'unstated implication' were 'in the actual wording or text of the specific edit itself'.

Here is a specific example of what I mean. This edit: The historical context section of the Hutaree article completely deleted, was made using this specific logic, as in the words agreed to by the editor making the deletion: "the cite is OR because the implied conclusion is not in the cite." You can follow the editor's reasoning on the article's talk page. When this edit was pointed out to the three editors running the WP:NOR article, they essentially supported the deletion, and I was harangued and told by one of these three that I might do best to consider leaving Wikipedia and go to WikiUniversity instead. I was told by them that I was confused, and simply incapable of understanding their 'higher logic'.

It seems to me that this new 'expansion' of the role of WP:NOR, which has apparently been gradually carved out by these editors over the last 4 years, is not what you had intended Wikipedia to do. The expansion of the policy particularly seems to focus on the WP:SYN aspect of WP:NOR. It seems to me that if this policy goes unchecked, Wikipedia will eventually be stripped of many good edits and many good editors. It will also eventually entirely change the fundamental nature of Wikipedia, severely reducing the amount of 'thought provoking' material allowed in it. I believe if not checked, this expanded policy will cause Wikipedia to be 'dumbed-down' in a very major way in the coming months and years. I have already noted some good editors who seem to have left as a result of this new expansion of WP:NOR. I may be amongst them (though I am sure I'm actually not one of the better ones to leave, but I guess perhaps that one editor's suggestion that I should leave may have been accurate after all.) The newly implemented WP:NOR/WP:SYN policy seems to me to have already caused a good deal of concern in Wikipedia talk-space. A simple search for the term WP:SYN on in Wikipedia talk-space points to many editors already expressing much disillusionment over the new WP:NOR/WP:SYN policy.

I don't think any one of the editors involved in creating or enforcing this new policy expansion has any hidden agenda, they are all just in some sort of a state of confusion over it for some reason. It seems to me that this expanded policy has been allowed to gradually creep in over the last 4 years, beginning with the acceptance of the "nutshell template" on the WP:NOR page stating that Wikipedia "does not publish Original Thought" back in 2006. At any rate, I was wondering if you might please be able to look in on this and if possible, to please comment on it either over at the WP:NOR talk page, or maybe here.

I wish you all the best of luck in convincing the Icelanders to get their darned volcano to behave more responsibly once again. :-) Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

After no reply from Jimbo for 21 hours, I wrote this:

OK, Jimbo, it seems that you're in a position that might not allow you to get back down into the 'trenches' and to deal with day to day policy debates. I can fully appreciate this. Still, maybe if I just ask you two simple questions here, that might help us all. So here they are, two very simple questions:

1. Do you think that the current WP:NOR policy which has been expanded over the last 4 years to also include a prohibition against 'Original Thought', and which was expanded again last summer to specifically ban 'implications not specifically cited' is the same as what you first had in mind when you explained what you meant by 'Original Research'? Yes or no?
2. Do you think the current policy regarding 'Original Thought' as it is enforced today is a Wikipedia policy step in the right direction, or in the wrong direction?

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

NOR has never distinguished between original research and all the other originals—thoughts, arguments, opinions, implications, ideas; see July 2005, for example: "The phrase 'original research' in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'

Sadly, I wrote a long response to this, including a somewhat detailed analysis of the specific case in question, and then hit 'save' and went to dinner and neglected to save a 2nd time, and then closed the window when I got back from dinner. Therefore, my response was lost.

Suffice to say, this summarizes it:

1. I don't think policy has materially changed in a very long time - others have now already said the same thing.

2. I don't agree that this policy loses us good authors. Well, perhaps a few good authors would do a great job of original research, and we do lose those. But at the same time, we lose a lot of really bad authors who would drag us into endless and irresolvable conflicts with their original thoughts.

3. In the particular case, I don't understand what the 3rd century remark has to do with this contemporary hate/terrorist group. I mean, it does make sense - and is easy to do with reliable sources - to point out that this group's views are fringe and not within the mainstream of Christian thought. But a throwaway line about 3rd century Christianity... what's the link? I wouldn't reach the question of OR before I'd remove it - even if a source happened to say it, I would still question whether it would make sense at that point of the article. (It is possible, but it would have to be written in a more comprehensible fashion, so that the reader is not left wondering "huh? 3rd century?")--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

First, thank you for responding Jimbo. So in summary, you seem to agree primarily with SlimVirgin's position, but you still think that the editors probably used the wrong rationale to delete the cite, no? Actually, I can now clearly see your reasoning, Jimbo, now that someone has actually pointed this out to me. I agree with you about an apparent relevance issue regarding that 3rd century cite, and of course, that the cite wasn't truly OR. But, here is where I feel that the policy has changed ever so slightly, and I feel that this slight change is what is causing folks some difficulty. Last summer was the first time, to the best of my knowledge, that the WP:NOR policy wording first started trying to incorporate specific wording about 'implications'. OK, perhaps there is a need to deal with them in the policy, but the subject of dealing with mere implications in the policy wording is where I think the differences of opinion about OR really began. The fact that so many editors, all of the regular WP:NOR editors, and the two other editors at the Hutaree article, all agreed that the cite was OR, is to me a sign that there may be something about the current policy that is somehow causing folks to get confused about the true meaning of OR. Personally I think it is because for the first time in 9 years there is now wording in the policy that attempts to specifically deal with implications. Like I said earlier, maybe the policy does need to deal with implications specifically (despite my personal preference that it not) but if it is going to deal with them, then I definitely think that there is a clear need for the policy wording to be made clearer than it is now. I think that the whole idea of a good or a bad implication is generally a much harder concept to work with than dealing with a good or a bad written phrase. It seems to me that good policy regarding implications is much harder to write, and it is also much harder for a typical editor to understand. Thus what seems to me to be this confusion, no consensus on whether or not the 3rd century cite was OR. That is why I proposed taking out the fairly new "implication" wording from the policy page altogether, at least until a broader consensus and understanding on it might be reached. That is all. Scott P. (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To be more clear: I do think that 3rd century bit was OR in that context. What I mean when I say "wouldn't reach the question" is something I've picked up from reading too many Supreme Court cases over the years (my geeky hobby). One principle that courts wisely follow is to avoid "reaching" a thorny question, in case there is an easier and more obvious principle to be applied. In this case, it doesn't really matter if the 3rd century stuff was OR or not, simply because it wasn't relevant (or at any rate didn't have any obvious relevance) to the article at hand. The beliefs of 3rd century Christians is simply not relevant to the beliefs of contemporary self-styled "Christian" terrorists - not unless there is some specific link between the two which we didn't give.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I can see what you are saying. One reason I chose to highlight this particular cite to discuss here was because it is what I would call a slightly 'loaded' cite. Whenever questions of religion, belief, and faith enter in, it seems to me you almost automatically have what I would call a 'hot button topic', from the start. Questions start to automatically enter in like 'is this guy trying to preach to us?' If so, then obviously OR,.... or perhaps not I say. OK, you might ask yourself, does this editor have a 'personal agenda'? In my particular case, this is how this edit came about. Someone asked me to insert a cite about the Baldwin fellow, this 'Christian' pastor who is a sympathizer and a vocal supporter of the Hutaree.

After inserting the Baldwin info, I reread the article and said to myself, "now any kook could read this and think that the Hutaree might be the best thing since sliced bread". So, I thought, we need to balance something against the Baldwin info...... Walaa, the 3rd century cite. Next thing you know, the 3rd century cite was deleted as OR, leaving only the Baldwin info as the most supposedly 'certified christian expert' speaking on the page once again. OR policy apparently favored publishing info about Baldwin over info that would lead readers directly to the teachings of the founder of the Christian movement. Fortunately some other editors have since fixed the imbalance that the removal of the 3rd century cite created.

I don't believe that the fact that the earliest followers of Jesus tended to very strictly eschew violence is very common knowledge. Since by definition, the Hutaree position begs us to ask if their supposed 'militant-Christian' philosophy might somehow be fundamentally sound, I still can't see why the article should be kept from trying to address this question in a well sourced and logical fashion. Jimbo, do you think it might be possible to somehow work the 3rd century cite back into the article? Or is it simply too 'preachy' to be allowable here?

Perhaps any in depth discussion of religious issues should simply generally be kept out of most Wikipedia articles, as a topic that is generally too much of a 'hot button topic' to be reported on in any great detail here? I don't know.

I hope that I'm not just beating a dead horse here. If you want this to be my last post on this topic to your talk-page, just say so, and I'll be glad to finally shut-up. If I am just being the "jerky squeaky wheel" here, just say so. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

after another 14 hour pause, I added this (could he have been hoping I might forget about posting here?):

OK, I think I understand why this difference of opinions. When the Christian church was essentially "Romanized" under Constantine in the 4th century, its doctrines were also "Romanized" to a certain extent. One of the reasons that early Christians were persecuted for the first three centuries is because they typically refused to serve in the Roman legions, as they were forbidden by their religion. By the time of Constantine, after 3 centuries of struggle between the Roman empire and the Christian church, it seems both sides were ready for a "compromise". So under Constantine, the earlier Christian proscriptions against military service were gradually removed from Christian policy. Naturally, making such a major policy change in the Church required a little "revisionist license" on the part of Church historians of that period. But the earlier record remains. So essentially, what happened was that the Church's shift in policy amounted to a certain type of 'OR', claiming something that was not true. Now for the last 1700 years, almost all Church policy has permitted military service by Christians, and almost all Christian confirmation students are taught absolutely nothing about the early Church's policy on military service.

So, essentially what has happened here, from my own perspective, is that editors here have had an instinctive knee-jerk reaction to seeing this information about the early Church's position on non-violence. Instinctively they say to themselves, this cannot be true, and delete the information as OR, because of this. Most editors, following their instincts here, have become defenders of the OR of the Church of the 4th century, without even knowing it.

I feel I've said all I need to say, and I think I've probably finally reached the end of my rope on this one, so to speak. I simply won't write again about early Christian pacifism on Wikipedia, or any other potentially controversial topic where it is likely that a majority of readers might tend to have an instinctive reaction to want to disagree. Thank you Jimbo and all others here for taking the time to hear me out. Scott P. (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this is fine and interesting. What I would suggest here is that the point you want included in the article is a sensible one to include. A reader may well wonder to what extent Hutaree beliefs or "Militant Christian" beliefs reflect mainstream/historic Christian belief and practice. I don't personally see any reason to privilege 3rd century (or 6th century or 12th century) variants in that analysis, but the general idea of making sure that the reader does understand that Hutaree beliefs are pretty unusual and not consistent with mainstream understanding of Christ's beliefs and teachings is of course a fine thing to include.

I believe, though, that the observation you want to make is not particularly original or creative (no disrespect intended, of course, I think you know what I mean!)... it's just a sensible point. As such, therefore, it must be easy to find plenty of contemporary critics of violent Christian sects who will make this sort of obvious point? No need for us to make it ourselves.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I've emailed you my reply, thanks. Scott P. (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)