Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Important text change that would bring in a new policy on what is original research

Original Text

Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

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".

Proposed text

Original research refers to theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any unpublished interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to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".

Original research is prohibited when produced by editors of Wikipedia if it has not been published elsewhere. (This prohibition does not refer to research that is published or available elsewhere, although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate.) In summary, if the facts, opinions, or arguments you want to include have not been published already by a credible or reputable publication, you're engaged in original research.

Comment The proposed text is so very wide that 40% of wiki articles would have to be deleted.

• Vfd could and would placed on many many articles.--Poorman 05:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at, Poorman. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Good point, Slim. If you read the proposed text it, seems to say the same thing as the original text. Thus keeping the original text should not upset anyone. (Slim chance!) No pun intended --Poorman 06:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• I suppose I don't really see the substantive difference. Could you say what you see it as? (Puns about my name are strictly forbidden, BTW.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, you're in a lot of trouble, Poorman. I'd run for the hills if I were you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I am in southern Thailand, so there are swamps but no hills. Looks like I can ril, but I can't hide!(not another pun) --Poorman 06:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Then start worrying. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any substantive difference between the old text and the new text. Could some one explain what they think the substantive difference is, if any? I do think however that the new text is more clearly worded. Who is proposing this change? Paul August ☎ 17:51, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

My greatest concern the five pillars of Wikipedia are slowly being changed to make it easier to delete by Vfd. This will allow "blocks of users" to delete and control.

--Poorman

I truly appreciate Poorman's concern which, in specific cases, I share. But I think with all due respect that Poorman's concern is based on an unacceptable premise. When we find articles that vi9olate our policies, the typical and ´´first´´ response is to try to improve the article. We propose deletion only if we believe that the article would not exist were it not for original research, i.e. the particular article in question necessarily violates this policy (excluding of course apple pie and current events-like examples). Otherwise, the point of identifying a violation of NOR is a call for people to do better research and cite verifiable sources, and prune the article of unsustainable elements ... not deletion. SR

I agree. The first response is to try to improve the article. I propose deletion only if we believe that the article would not exist were it not for original research. Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate). Also kindness counts.--Poorman 11:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Do I really have to prove that Einstein's general relativity of 1915 isn't a result of my original research?

I'd like to see an arbitration on the following subject:

Fact: In page "General relativity", secion "Alternative theories" a ref to my page titled "General relativity with conservation of energy" has been removed by Ems57fcva with the following explanation: (→Alternative theories - removed User:JimJast's "general relativity with conservation of energy". Cannot verify that this is not original research.)

Implications: It means that Ems57fcva believes that "general relativity with conservation of energy" is a result of my original reserch rather than work of Einstein.

My objections: I was not born yet when Einstein proposed his 1915 "general relativity theory" (necessarily with conservation of energy since it happen to be the basic principle of physics - see Wikipedia), and so it was impossible for Einstein to base his work on my "original research" (copy of my driver's license verifying my date of birth may be presented when required).

Comments: In my humble opinion it is improper to remove the original Einstein's theory of 1915 from the list of possible alternative theorires to the present general relativity that is an Einstein's original theory "enhanced" by the removal of conservation of energy from it to make viable a hypothesis that the universe has been created in a hot "big bang" event some 14 billion years ago and is expanding ever since. The impropriety is because the original Einstein's theory (as it can be easily demonstrated wit high school calculus which does not require any research) is able to explain all the mysteries that the present general relativity without conservation of energy can't explain. The new (post Einsteinian) general relativity to stay viable has to postulate except non conservation of energy severeal not observed yet phenomena. Which strongly suggests in my humble opinion that Einstein's original theory of 1915 is right and the theory without the conservation of energy but with expanding space in it instead, is wrong. Yet I don't insit on deciding on rightness of any theory just on keeping the record straight, that there is available also the original Einstein's general relativity of 1915, with conservation of energy, that can be used as an alternative to the present post Einsteinian general realativity without conservation of energy. If mentioning the fact that Einstein theory of 1915 is able to explain all the mysterious phenomena in relatively simple way by postulating general time dilation (another removed page) would constitute an original resaerch, it does not need to be mentioned. But I don't see why mentioning that Einstein 1915 is an altrnative theory, contradicts the policy of "no original research" (if Einstein's theory of 1915 was not discovered by me, which I can prove). Jim 12:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Response: Jim is not documenting Einstein's 1915 theory. Instead he is attempting to document his own interpretation (or IMO misunderstanding) of it. The current general relativity page is mostly devoted to decribing the 1915 theory as it has come to be understood by those who study it (with the exception being the Alternate theories section). In any case, I kindly submit to you all the proposition that this issue should be discussed at talk:general relativity and not here. --EMS | Talk 17:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Published Crackpottery and Apologetics

The current guidelines for no original research seem as though they don't do a good job dealing with the issue of published crackpottery. A couple of points to propose with respect to this, but before I start I'll notice that most of my experience with crackpottery on wikipedia has been with respect to historical/archaeological, rather than strictly scientific, subjects:

1. Crackpot/fringe views about particular scientific or historical subjects should not be discussed in the articles about those scientific or historical subjects. Thus, David Rohl's view of when Ramesses II lived should not be mentioned in the article about Ramesses II; Graham Hancock's view of the Great Pyramid should not be (but, sadly, is) discussed in the Great Pyramid of Giza article. The Jehovah's Witnesses' dates for the reign of Nebuchadrezzar II need not, and ought not, be mentioned in that article. I would imagine that plasma cosmology theories of the origins of the universe should not be mentioned in the Big Bang article, to take a scientific example. The fact that Rohl, Hancock, and plasma cosmologists have had books published by major publishing houses, and that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a relatively large religious group, ought not trump the fact that their views are nearly universally rejected by the competent experts in their respective fields.
2. In articles where it is appropriate to discuss crackpot views, it is incredibly important to note the crackpottiness of the views. Our David Rohl article oughtn't pretend that Rohl's views are a serious challenge to traditional chronology, because they are not.

A corollary issue to this is the problem of apologetics. Most scholars believe in the Documentary Hypothesis on the origins of the Torah. Most believe that the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC, and that there are at least two, and more likely three, separate strands of the Book of Isaiah, written at widely different times. And so forth. In such instances, the fact that some religious groups dispute these findings ought to be mentioned. But I don't see how we can treat the beliefs of some religious groups as though they are equivalent to the beliefs of many other religious groups and of nearly all mainstream scholars. I think we need to make a much greater effort to insure that apologetics (of whatever kind) do not make their way into wikipedia. john k 21:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

What about David Irving as an example? He was very widely published and his discredited research on the numbers of people killed in the Bombing of Dresden are still used by some respectable sources like Columbia and Encarta Encyclopaedias? The Judge at the Irving initiated libel trial, said in his summing up "Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". The problem is that if one does not discuss the "Crackpot/fringe views about particular scientific or historical subjects" (a) there are endless edit wars over the issue as each new generation of editors who have seen Irving's numbers but do not know they are from Irving, (or the usual suspects), re-adds the information. (b) By omitting mention of the person and their research means that their ideas go unchallenged and for a young person doing a school project, who is looking at more than one source, how are they to judge that one source, eg Encarta which mentions up to 135,000 dead, is less reliable than the 25,000-35,000 estimated killed in Wikipedia? And I haven't even mentioned the 202,040 put out by Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry...! Philip Baird Shearer 08:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the above discussion, but it is not really relevant to this particular policy. Perhaps it is more appropriate to the cite sources policy, as you are discussing what are the limits of acceptable sources. Or you may feel there is need of an additional policy. I encourage you to move this discussion elsewhere, not because I dismiss your concerns, but because they are important enough to merit further discussion, which will happen at a more appropriate place. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a little confused

"The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas"

So does that mean that if I were to do some reasearch on something, and I came up with a theory that could be backed up by actual proof, it would be allowed? If not, then why?

It not being allowed is exactly what "No original research" means. More accurately, Wikipedia is simply not the right place for it. Get your theory published first in a peer-reviewed journal, then Wikipedia is the place for it. Wikipedia is intended to use primary and secondary sources; it's not meant to be a primary or secondary sources. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

PS. I realized I may have skimped on the question of "why". There's a good reason Wikipedia is intended to use reliable sources. When you try to get your theory published in that peer-reviewed journal, other experts in your field have the opportunity to evaluate your work, and presumbly, catch any serious flaws. If there's debate about it, it will be among experts. Something published in a reputable journal is assumed to have been scrutinized. A theory you just invented yourself, even if you have good experimental data to confirm it, is not. Friday (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah OK, I see, thanks.

Book Review

What do I do with a page about a book that only contains a book review. Do you delete it or put something else there. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 07:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You mark it for {{cleanup}} or {{attention}}, not deletion, according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. ··gracefool |☺ 08:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not see anything about book review in the Deletion policy. Perhaps that is the point. Ok, but isn't book review a simple case of original research? A summary of the book might not qualify as original research, but a book review, which usually includes some form of criticisms, seems to qualify. Deletion policy says that articles that are [entirely] original research should be listed for deletion. --Lumière 15:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

An attempt to rework this policy

FYI -

I have been working on my own redraft of this policy at User:Ems57fcva/sandobox/No_original_research. The basic points this I try to make with this are that

• Wikipedia cannot act as a primary of secondary source of information, and
• what counts as an appropriate source is context dependent.

To me, it is not enough to achieve publication. Instead, the idea must have become noteworthy. That is not to say that it must be famous or well known, but at least for those with an interest in a relevant field that this is an item worthy of their attention. I have run across one editor who published his alternate explanation of gravity in Electronics World, and popular science magazine devoted mostly to electricity and modern technology. He took that to be the "primary publication" needed. So I have tried to produce a sense that the source must be relevant.

I have done what I can with this. I do not feel that it has come together quite right, and so I am not formally proposing it as a replacement for the current policy. However, I encourage people to look it over and see if they can make some use of it. --EMS | Talk 03:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe you are reworking this policy, I believe you are proposing another policy. There is nothing wrong with doing this. But please bear in mind that Wikipedia has many policies. No one policy can or should bear the weight of all of our standards. Rather than tack on another requirement for inclusion to this policy you should be looking at other policies first to see if thee is one that already raises this issue (some do, I believe) and if you are not satisfied that any make this point, then you should propose it as a new policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Eyewitness testimony

Is original eyewitness testimony considered prohibited original research? See the dispute about Billy Joel's hometown on Talk:Billy_Joel#Billy_Joel_never_lived_in_Levittown. --Locarno 14:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is prohibited. I say this with some sorrow, because clearly there are some topics where you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that some newspaper article, or publicists' statement, is wrong. This doesn't fit into the Apple Pie or Current Events exclusions from the policy, because there are so many citable claims that BJ is from Levittown. So the original research that proves he is from Hicksville or from someplace else is argumentative. I think that the principle of NOR is so important to the integrity of Wikipedia, we just HAVE to restrain ourselves. Of course, if you can find a published article that makes this point, by all means include it!!! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The NOR policy should be adjusted to allow eyewitness testimony and personal communication, provided that it is included as a quotation and a verifiable real-world identity of the source is clearly provided. These standards are more stringent than those required in many peer reviewed academic publications. This would also be the best way of handling testimony like that of User:SlimVirgin on Wittgenstein below. --pde 12:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The main criteria used in peer-reviewed publications is that experts agree that the content is fair, accurate, etc. This process checks more than just the authenticity of the authors. This also applies to statements that are sourced via personal communication. However, Wikipedia does not have a peer review process, and I do not think that we have the required expertise to do that. Therefore, we cannot apply the same criteria. Instead, our criteria is that a content such as a quote must first appear in a publication that provides this kind of review. In addition, even if, unlike the experts in a peer-review process, we did not care about the fairness and accuracy of the quoted statement, I do not see how you propose that we check the authenticity of the authors. --Lumière 13:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course wikipedia has a peer review process! The nature of "peerdom" is different of course :). If a quotation is attributed to an identifiable real-world person, readers (including future editors) can evaluate its pertinence to the article's subject matter. Are you afraid that cranks will post falsified quotations and other editors will be unable to detect this? -- pde 05:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I reject Pde's suggestion. No original research means no original research. Bear in mind too that SlimVirgin was making a rhetorical point. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity (I'm really jumping into the discussion of this policy at random)... has there been any serious consideration of instigating a proper peer review system instead of a strict prohibition on unsourced conclusions? Certainly, substantial and complicated research should be sent to peer reviewed journals. But there's plenty of other useful inference and analysis which can be good for a wikipedia entry without deserving an entire journal article -- pde

IMO, we definitively do not have the structure for any peer review. We would have to change completely the structure. In particular, even "simple" inference and analysis can become problematic and be the basis for unfair stories, etc. The purpose of a peer review system is to prevent these innacurate and unfair stories. There is no way to provide such a peer review with the current anonymous, open to anyone, etc. structure. --Lumière 05:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Pde, there was and maybe still is an associated project called Nupedia that was meant to include peer-review. As Lumiere correctly points out, Wikipedia was deliberately set up as an alternative to that. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A Proposed ammendment to the "No original research" limitation

Before revising the "No original research" page, I am seeking consensus on the following proposal.

The US judicial system has long struggled with what is a valid basis for claims of authority in the courtroom. In 1923, the Frye standard was formulated by the Supreme Court in which expert testimony would only be allowed to be presented to the fact finders if it was established (had "achieved acceptance") in the relevant scientific/expert community as evidenced by, among other things, publication in peer reviewed technical/scientific publications.

Sounds familiar, no? This is very similar to the Wikipedia standard of not including "original research" by editors of the Wikipedia.

However, in 1993, the Frye standard was revised by the new Daubert standard. In formulating the Daubert standard, the Supreme court acknowledged that knowledge was changing rapidly and that the courts, in the pursuit of the facts, might be quite remiss if a new incontrovertible understanding was not allowed into the courtroom.

The analogy would be to a study of a new drug to cure AIDS. If in our study, preliminary analyses indicate that the new drug is twice as effective as existing treatment in preventing the progression of the disease, it would be considered unethical to continue the study and deprive the "comparison" group (who were getting the standard treatment) of a life saving drug. Even though the finding had not been published in a peer reviewed journal.

In a similar vein, the Daubert standard requires that a judge review evidence that a new theory/finding be allowed into testimony because the existing evidence makes it clear that it is valid---even if it hasn't been peer reviewed and published yet. Just so, would we not be remiss to not consider other bases for knowledge other than publication in peer reviewed or otherwise authoritative venues?

Indeed, if the evolving, non-static Wikipedia is not to be a source of the latest knowledge, in what forum would one expect to find up-to-the-minute, valid information? As others have noted, many Wikipedia articles are about topics that are too new to have been published in authoritative or peer reviewed forums.

I would propose that the editorial process of review and revision of the Wikipedia itself provides one of the most effective forums for reviewing new information/ideas available today. Thus, the Wikipedia may be one of the only reliable forums for cutting edge information. If this is so, and I believe it is, then deleting articles or information because the information has not appeared in more static, slow-moving forums would constrain the Wikipedia and prevent it from performing an important function that only an evolving, ever changing medium can provide.

My suggestion would be to stay with the "original research" standard (just as the courts continue to use the Frye standard unless there is a compelling reason to go beyond it to the Daubert criteria) but to allow unpublished un-peer reviewed information in when there are other reasons to consider it valid, i.e., when it has been subjected to the Wikipedia editorial process itself and not deemed to be irrelevant, arbitrary, or untrue by the editors. Bear in mind that inumerable nonsensical, false, irrelevant, and vandalistic edits are routinely (and rapidly) deleted by many editors, i.e., patently false and/or misleading information is quite ephemeral in the Wikipedia.

As an example of one of an inumerable number of Wikipedia articles about topics that have not been researched and published in peer reviewed journals, I refer you to the articles on South Park and the numerous articles on each of the South Park contributors, episodes, and characters. While they do contain some "original research," as time goes on, they are being revised to reflect more NPOV, to refine the ideas presented with references as they become available, and to eliminate the idiosyncratic views of the original authors. If they were to be subjected to the "original research" criteria, the vast majority would have to be deleted as there are limited authoritative sources about Cartman, Tweak, Kyle's mother, or about specific new episodes, etc.

(While many features of South Park have now been written about in many forums, many of the statements made in the Wikipedia articles have no reference basis other than the fact that numerous Wikipedia editors have found the statements to be acceptable. And there are many cultural phenomena that are even newer than South Park and yet should not be barred from inclusion.)

The proposal I am making is:

• To employ the existing "No original research" standard to all articles about established areas of knowledge that have had time to accumulate references and peer reviewed publication, and

• To allow articles to exist that refer to notions that are too new to have undergone such a process, with the understanding that

• • Such articles must be subject to revision by established knowledge as it comes into existence, and

• • Such articles are allowed to exist because the Wikipedia editing process, itself, is a valid, important basis for reviewing knowledge that has not had time to be reviewed and established in more static forums, and

• • Such articles should be marked or noted as such, i.e., that the information contained in the article is new and has not had time to be established in other forums.

This last suggestion is simply a reflection of the fact that not all human knowledge has been established and or achieved consensus to the same degree. To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality. To demand that all Wikipedia articles be equally capable of being defended on the basis that they reflect knowledge established through peer review in more static media would mean:

• The elimination of many thousands of Wikipedia articles that include useful information sought by readers.

• The relegation of the Wikipedia---a uniquely non-static medium---to being a mere reflection of more static media.

• The deprivation of those seeking knowledge in a unique medium for researching fast changing/evolving knowledge using an editorial system that ensures a fairly high degree of validity.

Again, the loss of certainty about new knowledge can be offset by

• posting a notice about the limits to which the information in the article has achieved general acceptance

• by the Wikipedia editorial process itself, which seems to ensure that nonsense is deleted and errors revised

• and by the importance of having a valid forum for such new knowledge, a forum that only a non-static, rapidly evolving medium like the Wikipedia can provide.

Kriegman 05:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly object to any weakening of the no original research rule. It's hard enough to prevent nonsense from getting in as it is. Also, if you're going to be making policy proposals, it'd be best if you, you know, have some basic familiarity with talk page etiquette - new topics go at the bottom of the page. john k 06:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Familiarity with talk page etiquette is nice. Of course lack of such should in no way be a bar to making thoughtful proposals like the above. Paul August ☎ 15:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No, but I think that people should make some effort to be familiar with our ways before they start making policy proposals. john k 15:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Like John above I am relunctant to explicitly weaken one of our core principles like NOR. And modifing NOR in the way suggested would require lots of discussion and community wide consensus. Nevertheless there is considerable merit in what Kriegman has written above. I agree that if we were to strictly enforce the letter of NOR, many good articles like the South Park articles would have to go. This is a conundrum. And I think we need to think about this carefully. — Paul August ☎ 15:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the point about South Park is overblown. The "no original research" rule has never been taken to apply in situations like that, and for good reason. I don't see why we should weaken a major rule in order to deal with a non-existent problem. john k 15:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to elaborate a bit, I think that the NOR rule has never been applied to what are simply factual statements. In that case, we go to Wikipedia:Verifiability. NOR generally applies to interpretations and theories. But a basic fact like what happened in a particular episode of South Park simply doesn't come under the purview of this rule. john k 16:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have never supported NOR as a policy (although obviously I enforce it); as applied to popular culture it is obviously impractical (In what journal does one find peer reviewed info on Ashlee Simpson? Our practice is much more common sense than is set forth in the policy itself. I would like to see an attempt at convergence between policy and practice. Fred Bauder 15:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I too oppose this proposal, although like John K and Paul August, I appreciate the spirit in which it is offered. I have three reasons for opposing it. First, the stakes in court cases are much higher than in Wikipedia articles, so the need to take into account unpublished research is just on a whole other level. Second, I do not agree that the Wikipedia community is one of the one of "the most effective forums for reviewing new information/ideas available today." This may be true (1) of the WWW as a whole and (2) over time, but the nature of Wikipedia is that at no one point in time can we be sure of the quality of an article. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Moreover, I think an unstated ethic of Wikipedia, unstated but implicit in both our NOR and NPOV policies, is that we are not authoritarian, i.e. we do not claim authority. This makes us very different from judges who are by law authorities. We have no law here, just policies and generally loose ones. Finally, for some of the specific examples Kriegman provides, I believe that the Apple Pie and Current Events exclusions from this policy are sufficient. Trivial though those exclusions may seem, they are essential to the success of this policy (I think here I am making a point that is very close to Fred Bauder's, about popular culture. My point is that the policy already allows for certain exceptions). I have a piece of advice for Kriegman. Wait until there is a pressing case that fulfils his/her ideal conditions for the "notions that are too new to have undergone such a process" — I mean, wait for what you believe to be the perfect test-case, and make the argument. Make the argument first on the talk page of the article in question. I am sure that if you are as sincere and respectful as you have been here, even people who will disagree with you will state their disagreements in a respectful and what is more important substantive way. Ask people active at that article for some patience to talk out the issue. Get people to express their various views and reasons. Get as full a sense of what the issues are (I know you have already thought this through quite a bit, but there is no substitute for a test-case and finding out what other contributors really think). At that point, reconsider your own position. Give others the chance to change your mind. And if they can't change your mind, then work through all your reasons and propose a new policy or a new guideline, and invite general debate among the editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to Slrubenstein's claim that, unlike judges, "we are not authoritarian, i.e. we do not claim authority," I would then ask, "On what basis do you make deletions?" You must use "judgment" and act as a "judge." The Wikipedia policies you describe are the exactly analogous to laws, they are the "laws" (ultimate rules) of the Wiki. Indeed, here in Massachusetts, each state agency promulgates its "policies," which are, once approved, given the status of law. Calling the legal rules that judges follow "policies" instead of "laws" would not change the nature of the decision making they must engage in.

Just so, when you act to delete or add, you are using your judgment (acting as a judge) and claiming authority to interpret and act on the rules and policies of the Wikipedia. The only difference is that you are agreeing to negotiate with other judges/editors and, in a courtroom, the judge's decision is not negotiated (though it can be "negotiated" in the higher courts and returned to the judge for modifications of rulings). In the higher courts, e.g., an appeals court, or a supreme court, the decisions are even more like Wikipedia decisions as they are negotiated and voted on by a panel of judges.

Possibly this confusion between what judges do and what editors do in interpreting rules/policies/laws is based on the higher stakes (as Slrubenstein noted) in the courtroom and a misconception that judges, trained in the law, have some actual ability to judge that differentiates them from ordinary lay people interpreting the Wiki rules. As an expert witness in hundreds of trials, beyond knowing the definitions of certain words that a lay person would have to be taught, I have seen no evidence that judges can judge substantially better than the average intelligent person. Some can and some can't. Indeed, the NOR rule and many legal definitions have very similar structure, as can be seen in the application of the Frye and Daubert standards. Like lay people, many (if not most) judges have an incredible (and often frightening, given their power in very high stakes cases) inability to understand basic science and scientific principles (like the notion of statistical proof). The level of understanding used in applying scientific understandings is, on average, much higher in Wikipedia editing than in the courtroom.

As support for "the Wikipedia community is one of the one of 'the most effective forums for reviewing new information/ideas available today,'" I would point to the evolution of the Blog page. The original(?) or early version of) the "Blog" article could have been called "original research" and have been put up for deletion under the NOR. Notwithstanding its provision of an evidentiary basis (its links to examples) from the Internet, it cited no authorities and there may have been few to cite back in 2001 to support its claims. It eventually evolved into Blog, a fully documented, mature Wikipedia article. It would have been counterproductive to delete the article because the original author could not find or did not have access to paper print versions of each statement she wrote, statements that were fully verifiable (and/or open to disconfirmation) by following the links she provided. For the inclusion of such articles---which over a period of months or years should evolve into more mature articles or should then be removed if they do not---a modification of NOR would be necessary. Kriegman 18:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you are missing my point rather than deliberately twisting it. The fact that you can use the same word, "judge," to describe what I do when I delete from or add to an article, and to designate an elected or appointed to the bench, does not mean that the acts are the same. If you think that wikipedia has the authority of any court in the United States, you are deluded. We do not have that authority, and for that reason our policies and guidelines are often going to be quite different from those of judges. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! We seem to have lost that civility that seemed so clear.

I did not mean to insult you or twist your words. Really. I actually believe that when you apply a Wikipedia principle/rule such as NOR, you are doing precisely what a judge does when he applies the Frye standard and issues a ruling: Admissable (add/keep) or Inadmissable (delete, revert). You are interpreting the principle, evaluating the content, and issuing a judgement. Thus, though the authority is not the same (the stakes are quite different), the outcome is quite analogous: The judge does not allow junk science into the courtroom according to his interpretation of the Frye or Daubert standard and you don't allow bogus claims about human knowledge to enter encyclopedia articles according to your interpretation of NOR.

All of this was an attempt to respond to your assertion that the Wikipedia doesn't need a Daubert-like modification of the Frye-like NOR standard because

"we are not authoritarian, i.e. we do not claim authority. This makes us very different from judges who are by law authorities. We have no law here, just policies and generally loose ones. Finally, for some of the specific examples Kriegman provides, I believe that the Apple Pie and Current Events exclusions from this policy are sufficient."

My point was that the authority to exclude or admit evidence is precisely the same type of authority that you are exercising and therefore (though the stakes are smaller) you are exercising the exact same type of authority as judges. The policies are no "looser" just because the stakes are smaller. If you think the Wikipedia rules are applied inconsistently and not stringently, you should spend some time in a courtroom; there is often little similarity between one judge's ruling on an issue and another's on the identical issue. Admissable/Inadmissable because it meets the standard the Frye standard as the judge interprets it. Exclude/include because it meets the NOR standard as we interpret it or because it does not. Period. Exact same authority, with smaller stakes.

And the "low stakes" argument cuts both ways. Let's assume that we all agree (and it may be debatable given how assumptions about what is true can affect everything else) that the consequences of an average editor's decision are small compared to an average judge's ruling. Then how do you get to "the stakes in court cases are much higher than in Wikipedia articles, so the need to take into account unpublished research is just on a whole other level." The implication is that the high stakes in the court make it necessary to bend rules when the truth might be missed otherwise. In the Wikipedia, on the other hand, you are claiming that the smaller stakes make it unnecessary to bend the NOR rule. Yes, it may not be as important to bend the rule when the stakes are smaller, but it is precisely equally less important not to bend the rule if the stakes are smaller and the consequences are relatively slight! To paraphrase Dostoevsky's attorney in The Brothers Karamazov, "small stakes are a knife that cuts both ways." Kriegman 02:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly oppose proposals to weaken the policy; the current guidelines are not prohibitive. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Kriegman - perhaps there would be more sympathy for your proposal if you could point us to an example of a situation where current interpretations of the NOR rule is stifling an article. The fact that the NOR rule might theoretically be interpreted in such a way as to invalidate a huge number of articles that nobody has ever actually challenged is not a very good argument - obviously, whatever the letter of the law, it is being interpreted in a way that makes it allowable to have articles on South Park episodes without the existence of peer-reviewed articles on South Park. So, could you provide a real example of this? Then perhaps we can begin to assess whether your proposal is worthwhile or not. If there are no real examples, I think that should speak for itself. john k 07:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Kriegman wrote:

I would propose that the editorial process of review and revision of the Wikipedia itself provides one of the most effective forums for reviewing new information/ideas available today.

I must strongly oppose this view. If Wikipedia is to be a source of usable information, then it must rely of the judgement of others. To me, there is no need for new thoughts and ideas to be expressed here initially. If they are valid, they will be presented in more appropriate forums soon enough. An example relevant in many ways in the cold fusion episode of 1989. Pons and Fleischmann held a premature news conference, and got people thinking that they really had mastered cold fusion. However, their article never made it through the peer review process for the major journals. In the end, what they generated was a news fiasco which made knowledge of their research a part of our general knowledge and therefore made it suitable for Wikipedia. Obviously had the media known what they were doing, they would have been much more circumspect in their coverage. Indeed, since its popularity has made it a part of out general knowledge, South Park is very much appropriate for Wikipedia, although theories about what its creators are thinking (if not already general knowledge) would not be.

New theories are just that, and my experience is that those who try to place them into Wikipedia are attempting to use Wikipedia to make them a part of our general knowledge. As Wikipedia is here to document existing and accepted general knowledge (even of things like creationism which to many is false but none-the-less is still part our general knowledge), weakening this standard will very much serve to weaken Wikipedia. Wikipedians are usually not properly equipped to judge the ultimate acceptability of new ideas, and in my opinion should refrain from doing so. The issue must be whether a novel idea or narrative has become accepted into our general knowledge, not whether it should or (pass the crystal ball please) will be.

If anything, I think that this standard should be stregthenned. A new idea must not only have some appropriate primary sourcing, but also must be referenced in a significant amount of work by people other than its creator. (By "significant", I would think that a half-dozen works which directly reference the theory/narrative in question would be a good standard. I assure you that the vast majority of works do not rise to this trivial-sounding level of attention. Note that I would include articles in news magazines in the count for this standard as well as non-refereed journal and popular science magazines, as being mentioned in these are excellent indications of being admitted into our general knowledge.) --EMS | Talk 15:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for Kriegman's position, but I would strongly oppose any amendment to NOR, because it's the only thing standing between us and a deluge of nonsense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright. I've been avoiding doing what Slrubenstein and John K have suggested. I was hoping it wouldn't be necessary. But John K's point makes it clear: If a policy is working in practice and only theoretically will cause problems, then it shouldn't be changed. So I need to present an actual example. (BTW, John, maybe the etiquette should be that new topics should be placed at the top of the page. It would make repeated previewing of the most worked on recent topics easier as one would not have to scroll all the way to the bottom to find the right spot in the editing window after each preview.) I don't want to; but I guess I gotta.

Is there a biased view of bias operating?

The reason I have avoided providing an actual example of the problem I have faced with NOR is because I don't expect to get a fair consideration of the underlying issue once it is clear that I have "an agenda." I find too much "naive atheism," so to speak, in the culture of the Wikipedia, i.e., the belief that one can operate largely free of belief systems and bias. For example, Slrubenstein suggested that Wikipedia editors are not like judges who interpret rules according to their idiosyncratic notions of what the rule means and thus excercise real authority, i.e., push their own versions of what they think the law means (that is, how they understand it and how they think it should operate) into being, as opposed to following a rule that would (barring simple, neutral, i.e., unbiased, errors in understanding) lead to more or less the same outcome regardless of who the interpreter/editor is.

EMS seems to present a similar view in which Wikipedians should and can keep their two-cents out of it. Cold fusion, as an example of misinformation (was it out and out fraud, or did the proponents actually believe they had something?), may be an example of what we want to prevent people from using the Wikipedia for (i.e., to use it to present their crackpot, unintelligible, or irrelevant ideas). And the NOR rule, as it is stated, is well suited for ideas and theories, such as cold fusion, in the areas of the sciences (both physical and social) in which there really are peer reviewed journals. In the area of cultural and especially new phenomena, however, most of which will never be arbitrated in peer reviewed journals, the rule just doesn't quite fit so well (though the underlying principle/aim may still be sound).

In addition, Slrubenstein's and EMS's notions seem to suggest that editors can essentially just follow rules; we can expect experienced editors not to edit in the pursuit of their agendas (not to promote ideas/views they value). Yet, I believe there are reasons why this is both unrealistic and impossible in practice. Yes, I have edited quite a few articles in which I have no real interest. I needed some information. Went to the article. Got my information. Saw some errors (usually minor, grammatical, layout, or spelling). Corrected them. And left. I didn't put them on my watchlist. I didn't spend much time on them. I had very little influence over the content of the articles.

In one instance, I did do some follow up research and significantly improved the content (501(c)(3)). But this was an exception. Maybe you folks are Wikithusiasts whose agenda is the Wikipedia itself. While I share a strong interest in the Wikipedia, I would expect even such an interest to introduce bias, as in supporting the liberal notion that evolved organisms can reliably overcome self-interested bias---an interesting notion that, like the naive idealism underlying communism, flies in the face of how evolution works, i.e., by selecting those organisms designed to perceive and act on information in a manner biased toward their own interests.

How the Wikipedia harnesses biased writers to produce accurate, relatively neutral articles.

Indeed, I would suggest to those of you who hold such a bias (i.e., the belief that evolved creatures can, for the most part, intentionally and consciously perceive and rise above their adaptive biases) that editors who put some real effort into starting and/or really shaping an article have some deep (almost by definition, biased) interest in the topic. Have you ever seen a scholar or scientist that didn't have a strong opinion about the debates in their field? Those who really follow an article almost always have such "an agenda." Indeed, while standard encyclopedias try to be "objective," they invite experts in the various fields to write their specialized articles. These experts often have quite clear agendas and biases. For example, Freud was devoting all his life energy toward promoting psychoanalysis when the Encyclopedia Britannica editor enlisted him to write their 1922 article on psychoanalysis.

Rather than suggesting that self-interested bias can be avoided and/or overcome, we should acknowledge its inevitability. I realize that some if not most Wikipedians may already agree with this, and I do not mean to "preach to the converted." Especially since, like with the etiquette issue of topic placement, many if not most of you have more experience than I. Rather, I am responding to a frequent argument I have seen, in which an editor looks for self-interested bias, finds it, and then uses that as a basis for a deletion of an edit or even of an entire article. In contrast, it may be more productive to always assume self-interested bias, never to use such bias as a basis for an edit, and instead to proceed to evaluate an edit/article on the established principles and rules. In this process, our rules are not attempts to eliminate biased actions. In this view, we reframe our understanding of the Wikipedia rules as attempts to engage competing biases in a balancing, open source process that tends to neutralize bias. By using the Internet to invite a large number (all those available and interested) of (biased) parties to participate in the process and giving them equal authority to edit the text---something that has never existed in the collective human attempt to elucidate knowledge---we automatically eliminate the ability of one side to control the discourse.

(The NOR rule, itself, is partly an attempt to avoid the biasing impact of such self-interested agendas. I am claiming, however, that, somewhat paradoxically, the discussion of the employment of NOR often reveals some denial of the ubiquity of the biased self-interest the rule was designed to limit.)

In contrast to liberal notions about how fair, objective, and self-aware folks can be, I think that one of the most interesting things about the Wikipedia is how it functions to allow thoroughly biased parties to produce remarkably fair/accurate articles. For example, one article I have been following and contributing to is the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Partly, I have invested a good deal of energy in that article (and none of the dozens of other closely related, similar articles that tap into the same issues) precisely to study one example of how Wikipedia articles develop when almost all of the main participants have strong emotional ties to biased views of the subject. I have been very impressed about how careful the main content contributors to this article are: If you want your input to last for more than a few hours, you simply have to be very careful about your wording and your ability to back up what you say. Note: I am claiming that this makes people try to appear unbiased as true neutrality is impossible. While trying to appear unbiased is helpful, it is only through the constant removal of bias/inaccuracy, the introduction of opposing bias and inaccuracy, its removal and introduction of opposing bias and inaccuracy, etc. . . . that the article seesaws back and forth and slowly evolves toward real accuracy and neutrality. It is like Dawkins's Blind Watchmaker argument demonstrating how functional "designs" can come into being without a designer: The Wikipedia has created a process through which relative neutrality can be produced without neutral editors.

Again, I would claim that the Wiki process of editing and negotiating edits, even when the parties involved have conflicting views, is an excellent way to develop an accurate perspective, i.e., it can be an excellent test of (or method to evaluate) ideas, both old and new. Though Slrubenstein and EMS rejected this notion, there was no response to the example I gave of the early "Blog" article. And now I would add the 1948 War article. The latter article covers an area where debate rages with night and day "realities" presented by both sides. Yet, even when I am engaged in a strenuous argument with someone (for example, my oldest son) about this war, neither of us can find a clear bias in the Wikipedia version. I don't like some of what it says and I think there are still some biases in it, but it is the most balanced description on the web that I have been able to find. So I reiterate my claim: Certain knowledge claims---e.g., new ones with little or no references (the Blog), or old ones with endless night and day versions that can be found in an endless stream of apparently authoritative books and journals (e.g., the 1948 War)---seem to be uniquely arbitrated by the Wikipedia process.

Many articles are rife with untested unreferenced "theories"

Again, consider South Park, where you can easily spot dozens of theories or beliefs that are unsubstantiated by any references beyond the editor's opinion (and it may be ages before there are published references addressing more than a handful of these cultural theories/beliefs). Here are five examples among thousands in just the South Park articles (all from one small section of the main South Park article):

• Cartman is "often the funniest" (I agree.)
• Kyle is the "most easily persuadable" (Most easily of who? Certainly not Butters.)
• Butters is "repressed by his overbearing and oppressive parents" (I agree)
• Barbrady is "incompetent" (I agree)
• Satan is "insecure" (I agree)

But, we are told, my agreement (or yours, or other editors) is not to be the measure of whether a claim should be in the article; that's "the sin of OR." After all, we are only editors. But where will you find "peer reviewed" articles to support the zillions of cultural claims/judgments/descriptions that can be found in these articles? Nowhere. The idiosyncratic inaccuracies in such claims are corrected by other editors based on their examination of the evidence (i.e., their experience viewing South Park episodes).

Finally, an example, Open source religion: The article that is being attacked with NOR criticisms

In a similar vein, I believe the Open source religion (OSR) article can be revised and edited, based on other editors reviews of the statements after visiting the examples of this new cultural phenomenon. And I believe this is as it should be. Apparently, even some of those who oppose modifying NOR agree that NOR should be interpreted somewhat inconsistently:

• John K argues that the letter of the law need not be changed as it is not interpreted that stringently and thus does not cause many real problems.
• Paul August: "I agree that if we were to strictly enforce the letter of NOR, many good articles like the South Park articles would have to go. This is a conundrum. And I think we need to think about this carefully."
• Jayjg may have been saying something similar: "the current guidelines are not prohibitive."
• Fred Bauder: Our practice is much more common sense than is set forth in the policy itself. I would like to see an attempt at convergence between policy and practice. (Hmmn. Maybe Fred would be more open to modifying it.)

I came here to discuss NOR because it was being used to suggest deletion of what I consider a rather simple article with the kind of face validity found in some South Park articles, i.e., it describes a phenomena that can be checked by going to the links referred to, just like the Blog article noted earlier. But it (OSR) does not have many paper published references yet, and it has been attacked for being OR. I believe there are enough independent references to support the article even without modification of NOR, but I am only aware of one in the Boston Globe, 1/11/2004. This may also have been true of the early Blog article when it was created.

Hmmnn. I just realized another Wikipedia independent published reference describing OSR: Rushkoff's book.

A revised suggestion

OK. So one result of this dialogue is that I was forced to think about references to support the OSR article and became aware that I know of at least two that aren't mentioned in the article. However, even if this article can be fixed with existing external references, there was no need to force the issue with threats of deletion because of NOR. I think that, like the South Park articles, OSR could stand without the external references, at least for some time. An article like it---with the six Internet references---should not be rapidly subject to deletion based on NOR because the editors do not know of other, non-Internet, external, published references.

I felt forced to engage in a lengthy argument about it in the OSR-Talk page as well as to engage in this discussion. If the NOR rule could be clarified to be more consistent with actual practice (see Fred Bauder's comments above), this wouldn't be necessary. There is no reason why the inconsistency with which the rule is applied---inconsistency that usually prevents it from causing the problem I was describing---can't be described. So, I replace my original proposal with a call for clarification of how NOR is actually to be employed rather than for a fundamental change in the principle.

While I came here to negotiate this and thus learned more about NOR as well as the existence of validated external references for OSR, I believe that many people rigidly call the NOR rule into play without understanding these issues. And very few of the people for whom this causes problems would have the temerity to come here, propose a change, and engage in this process. The lack of clarity about how it is to be employed encourages wasteful arguments on innumerable talk pages about what NOR really means, and probably drives some people away from editing the Wikipedia.Kriegman 02:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

How would you deal with this claim, which I might insert into Ludwig Wittgenstein? "Although gay, Wittgenstein was extremely attractive to his female students at Cambridge, and appeared to relish being flirted with. Every Monday during Trinity term, he would arrive early enough to hand out freshly baked buns to the three women who attended his 9 a.m. supervisions. The laughter from the closely knit group could be heard all over Great Court."

You as a fellow editor on the page ask me how I know this, and I tell you I was one of those women. How would we see-saw back and forth to establish the truth? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting example. This seems like precisely the type of thing NOR should limit. You make several claims of the type that, if allowed in, could render the Wikipedia unreliable.

• female students found Wittgenstein extremely attractive
• he appeared to be flirting with them

Whether or not there are external sources for them, assuming you are accurate about the rest of the notions (how far the laughter could be heard, that this occurred during Trinity term, that he was gay, etc.), these two personal judgments are extremely subjective. As an expert witness who evaluates sex offenders to determine the risk they pose, I have heard more than one rapist say, "She was flirting with me. It was consensual sex; she wanted it." In more than a few cases, I have come to the conclusion that they really believed their distortions. While women may not get it wrong as often as men, women too can have "off the wall" notions about who is flirting with whom. And without a poll of other female students, what is the basis for making a general statement about his attractiveness? Maybe you just had "a crush" on him and imagined that everyone found him as attractive as you did.

That said, I think there are ways to make your experience (which is likely to contain some valid information) available for use in the Wikipedia.

• You could go get it published elsewhere.

As I noted, in the area of cultural/social experience, this is of limited use as there really are no "peer reviewed" journals where such claims will be evaluated. However, this is precisely the kind of validation I used to suggest that Timothy Leary had the quality "audacity." According to an eyewitness (that's what you are), he "stood up to" (subjective judgment 1) FBI agents to try to defend (subjective judgment 2) a terrified (subjective judgment 3), innocent (subjective judgment 4) woman during the Millbrook bust. The eyewitness was interviewed in a DVD I obtained from my local library, so I was able to reference the external source upon which (along with other activities, like his well-documented escape from prison) I based the characterization. But what makes the eyewitness's judgments in the DVD more reliable than your description of Wittgenstein's flirting and attractiveness? Nothing.

The difference is that other editors can go and view the DVD themselves and decide if my use of it comports with reality. While this calls for a good deal of judgment on the part of editors---and this is inescapable and should not be denied---it is not fundamentally different from any other kind of fact checking, i.e., going and reading a peer reviewed article on cold fusion to see if an editor is reporting it right. This seems to be the bottom line: There has to be a way for others to see: (1) what/who the source was, (2) if the source is a reliable basis for the type of information it provides, (3) if the source is sufficiently fixed in some medium to enable others to check it for themselves, and (4) to determine if, in the general opinion of other editors, the information from the source was correctly represented and characterized in the article.

So,

• You could get the information into a form that is available to others to evaluate.

In addition to publishing the information in a peer reviewed journal, which is not appropriate for such cultural information, where else can the information be "fixed" for others to view/examine. Well you could make and distribute a movie (or be interviewed for such). But that is not very doable and if we require such fixing of all cultural information a lot of knowledge will be lost. Not to mention that the vast majority of judgments/beliefs/statements in the South Park articles, for example, could not be made unless they were first shown to be fixed elsewhere.

Fortunately, there is another option, the technological innovation that makes the Wikipedia itself possible, the Web.

• You could find and/or create semi-fixed eyewitness accounts on the web that corroborate your view.

While some could argue that the Web is ephemeral and cannot be relied on for others to fact check, this is just a matter of degree. While available now, at some point, the DVD I referred to may be impossible for others to find. In the OSR article, I referenced several Web sources and somebody added one or two other examples of OSR. The reader can check the description of the phenomenon in the article against six fairly stable Internet presences, and I believe more will be found. (Not to mention, the two fixed print external sources that came to mind in this discussion, and others that I think I can now find.)

If there are discussion groups on the Web where Wittgenstein is the topic and this characterization of him is noted in them, you could reference them. To beef them up, you could enter the discussions and add your observations. While this suggestion may horrify naive editors who believe that this would allow people to create their own realities, what do they think is going on all the time in the old technology media? The difference is simply that it costs more to get an idea/belief into fixed form on paper, audio recording, or film than on the Internet. Without a genuine peer review process, requiring a highly fixed, more costly media publication doesn't make the information one iota more reliable. It simply biases all cultural information toward the interests of those with money.

Yes, it is easier to create and disseminate fictions on the Internet, just as it is easier to create and disseminate truths and artistic creations. But editors aren't stupid, especially when it is the judgment of the community of editors we are looking at. Clearly, publication in a major newspaper that has a large investment in its reputation for accuracy to protect is likely to be more reliable than a random blog. But there are more than one or two realities that you will never find in major mainstream newspapers that you will only be likely to encounter on the net in, for example, blogs. And if a notion has appeared in many, many blogs, that fact alone can have significant meaning and may be worthy of noting. The point is that the reliability of the source is routinely evaluated by editors using common sense. If it is easier to create fictions on the Internet, then we may require far more than one source before editors feel a notion should be included in the Wikipedia.

I would suggest that whether or not a cultural (non-peer reviewed) source is reliable can be evaluated---not by the degree to which it was costly to create a representation of and disseminate the notion in some medium, but rather---by the judgment of the community of editors. Indeed, the fact that the info is available on the Internet makes collective fact checking much easier (to precisely the same degree that it makes fact creating easier).

The bottom line is that editors have to be able to see and evaluate the source and that they must then use their judgment. If there are enough editors involved, common sense will prevail. Nonsense will be weeded out. The irrelevant chaff will be discarded. Bias will be neutralized. These are not statements of faith. They can be empirically verified by looking at the articles referenced in this discussion.

As Obi Wan Kenobi said, "Trust in the Wikipedia Process, Luke." Kriegman 13:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Kriegman, I have suggested twice that you have misunderstood me or misrepresented me, here and on your own page. Now you write:

For example, Slrubenstein suggested that Wikipedia editors are not like judges who interpret rules according to their idiosyncratic notions of what the rule means and thus excercise real authority, i.e., push their own versions of what they think the law means (that is, how they understand it and how they think it should operate) into being, as opposed to following a rule that would (barring simple, neutral, i.e., unbiased, errors in understanding) lead to more or less the same outcome regardless of who the interpreter/editor is.

Since I have already protested that you are misunderstanding me, it is hard for me now not to think that you are deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting me. This is not what I said, and this is not what I meant. Please do not ascribe to me views that I do not hold, and have not expoused at Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you are absolutely correct that I interpreted your words to mean what you quoted here. The words I interpreted were: "Moreover, I think an unstated ethic of Wikipedia, unstated but implicit in both our NOR and NPOV policies, is that we are not authoritarian, i.e. we do not claim authority. This makes us very different from judges who are by law authorities. We have no law here, just policies and generally loose ones." If my interpretation is wrong (and it very well may be), I do apologize. I will not refer to your words with my interpretation again. Sorry. Kriegman 14:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If you read what you quoted of me, you will see that your interpretation is entirely wrong. Thank you for clearing this up. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

---

All that I see in this long tirade is a straw man which Kriegman has quite conviently set up and knocked down.

My point is not the Wikipedians should be automatons and refrain from imposing their personal agendas on Wikipedia. Indeed, there is no point in editting Wikipedia unless there is something that you wish to accomplish by it (even if it is just to correct a misspelling). I also accept the point about mulyiple editors permitting the creation of reasonable NPOV and accurate text. However, there are people out there who want to make Wikipedia into a forum for my own unique ideas. That is where NOR comes in. if something seems outlandish enough, you need to either back it up (as with your Dylan example), or see it bounced.

I will admit that some clarification is needed for NOR. For example, I do not see peer review as being the real condition here for permissibility, but instead awareness of the item in question in society as a whole or within the relevant sector of it. There is plenty of peer reviewed material that is just junk (but at least it pads the CV). So I certainly can go along with the idea that what is acceptable is to some extent a function of what kinds of literature are available to support it, and that peer review journals may or may not be part of that mix.

I repeat: We are not here to review new material. We are here to report on that which already exists. For Star Trek there are plenty of fan magazines and fanzines to report from. For Bob Dylan, you not only have DVDs but also have a whole genre of rock-and-roll magazines (such as Rolling Stone), which should have articles that back up your interpretation of the DVD. Indeed, the popular press trumps peer review (as is that case for cold fusion) as a practical matter. NOR should be consciously aware of that, but I emphasize that I do not wat the floodgates openned to the many ideas that are not supported. I assure you that for every Gregor Mendel (whose laws of inheritance languished for 40 years until the field of genetics was ready for them) there are thousands of people with ideas that do not pan out; and I would argue that until an idea does pan out, it does not belong here anyway. --EMS | Talk 15:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Edward, after visiting your user page, I think I understand more about what you are saying. It is essential not to open the floodgates to crackpot ideas. And it is clear that you apply the NOR standard to your own scientific theory of general relativity as well as to your reaction to black holes. Good luck on publication. (I wish I could understand what you are writing about. Really. General relativity is one of my interests but I have never felt I achieved an adequate understanding of it.)

I believe that we are in more agreement than may appear; including what you said about my setting up a straw man. I did not do that intentionally and the straw nature of my humanoid adversary only became clear to me in the course of this dialogue and my attempting to spell things out in my "long tirade."

Be that as it may, there was still a problematic residue that you put quite succinctly:

"I will admit that some clarification is needed for NOR. For example, I do not see peer review as being the real condition here for permissibility, but instead awareness of the item in question in society as a whole or within the relevant sector of it. There is plenty of peer reviewed material that is just junk (but at least it pads the CV). So I certainly can go along with the idea that what is acceptable is to some extent a function of what kinds of literature are available to support it, and that peer review journals may or may not be part of that mix."

For me, that hits the nail on the head. Can we spell out some other sources (besides paper print and peer reviewed journals) that indicate "awareness of the item in question in society as a whole or within the relevant sector of it?" If we can agree that one demonstration of such would be links to arenas on the Internet that demonstrate the existence of the phenomenon in question, then my original problem is solved. Of course, as you seem to agree, the editors would have to feel the links sufficiently demonstrate the existence of the phenomenon and that it is accurately described. Could you go along with something like that?

This would resolve the problem that I had with an editor who challenged me to produce external paper print documentation of OSR (when I was unaware that I could actually do so). Is this a solution that others can go along with?

To spell it out, the proposed clarification of the NOR rule would be something like:

• For an article to be considered for inclusion in the Wikipedia, it must refer to persons, things, ideas, or beliefs of which there is a shared awareness or understanding in society as a whole or within a relevant sector of it.

• For a scientific theory, the standard for measuring the existence of such a shared awareness or understanding is publication in peer reviewed journals or the equivalent (e.g., academic press book publishers) or citation and discussion in such literature.

• For a cultural, social understanding or belief, the existence of such a shared awareness can be demonstrated by publication in newspapers, magazines, television, film, and the Internet.

• For some socio-cultural phenomena, if the item in question is available to direct observation by a sufficient number of Wikipedia editors, the validity of the article and its contents can be determined directly (e.g., the South Park notions and the "apple pie" exemption)

• The standard for evaluating the phenomenon must be based on convergent common sense among the editors and thus is dependent on the medium and the nature of the phenomenon.

Kriegman 19:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

PS. How did Dylan get into this? Kriegman 20:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that you may want to look at User:Ems57fcva/sandobox/No_original_research to see how I think that this policy should be revised/replaced. Maybe we can work together to create a draft for a revised or replacement policy. Note that I am seeking greater clarity instead of greater openness however. My experience with others who have alternate ideas is such that I do not mind my work being excluded from Wikipedia even if it is right. This simply is not the forum for such things. If my ideas are right, they will be validated in time and then admitted here because of that. In the meantime, there is no need to jump the gun, as any exceptions to NOR really do threaten to "open the floodgates".

The first of your points above is the gist of what I am saying. The journal standard I would nix and replace with one that various Wikiprojects can set their own standards, but in general some paper trail for the item in question is needed. Note that for science subjects more rigor than just peer-reviewed publications is often needed, while in other cases peer-review is non-existant. Even so, magazine publication is a benchmark since magazine editors tend to be experts in the field they publish on and automatically reject things that are unsuitable. (In fact, peer review is a means of reducing editor workload as well as of getting opinions on submitted works. Even in the sciences, many magazines and especially the more popularly oriented ones do not rely on peer review.)

I would emphasize that cultural awareness trumps other standards: If my ideas got publicized in the New York Times and scientists thereby became obliged to deal with the episode (even if it was to shoot my ideas down down), that would make it fodder for Wikipedia.

On the other hand, I would drop your last two points like hot potatoes. Socio-cultural phenomena get written up fairly quickly in the press. Once Time and/or Newsweek has done an article on it, then you have something that is admissible into Wikipedia. Once again, we do not need to anticipate that. As for "convergent common sense", it seems to me that this is the case if you are not challenged. But what if you are challenged, and other editors do not back you up? That is direct evidence that there is not "convergent common sense" in place, and at that point I do not want people to be able to argue that what they are presenting is "common sense". So let that business take care of itself, and leave it out of this standard. --EMS | Talk 21:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding those last two "hot potatoes."

If you reject "face validity," i.e., the ability of editors to look at a phenomenon directly and see if the article reflects it accurately, then aren't you rejecting the "apple pie" exemption that is already in NOR? I thought I had come to understand the "apple pie" exemption and that it also covered what is going on on the South Park pages, e.g., "when an article makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult."

In applying face validity, the editors directly experience a phenomenon and then edit an article so that the words comport with their collective experience. This applies to things like apple pie as well as the way :-) is used in Internet communication. A table of such text icons could appear in the Wikipedia long before any of the editors saw one in print in a newspaper or Newsweek. (I'll bet one exists in the Wikipedia, even though I can't find it, probably because I don't know what they are called.) While a reference could probably be found to some website that displays some of the icons and their meanings, even if one were not found, if the editors felt that a sufficient number of others can easily obtain direct experience about how the icons are used and there is general agreement, then this would meet the standard for which you spelled out the underlying principle, what I had, in essence, been referring to as "the South Park Standard."

Indeed, the Wikipedia is where I would go to find such a table, before it exists in any one print or external resource. The Wikipedia is now the place where you are likely to find the most complete list of Internet abbreviations, like BTW and IMHO. Check out that page. If we require it to appear in any other source, we would probably have to delete the page and/or many, if not most, of the items in the list there. Note all the references and citations to verify the data included there. None. Indeed, maybe some of the items should be deleted, and that may be an ongoing process. But the editors, at least at the beginning and for new abbreviations, have to rely on their direct experience. Someday, someone may publish a hard copy version of such a list, but it is likely to contain errors and be out of date the week after publication.

Such lists (text icons, Internet abbreviations) are rapidly evolving and the most authoritative, complete list of their usage could only appear in the Wikipedia. What individual or group of individuals do you know of could create such a complete list and edit it back and forth to refine it before it appears in the Wikipedia? Even if such a list is created elsewhere, what organization could keep up with its rapid evolution and compete with the Wikipedia for completeness and up-to-dateness? There are certain phenomena that the Wikpedia brings into existence. To say the Wikipedia cannot include such phenomena until they appear in Newsweek is . . . unrealistic.

Furthermore, I think there is a huge challenge to any attempt to ban face validity when no other referent is available for citation. You see, face validity is the same technique we use to determine if citations are valid! It is the bedrock technique for verification. Eliminate the ability of an editor to go and see directly if what is described in an article is what the citation refers to and you've eliminated the ability to fact check at all. "But that is not what I am eliminating," you might claim.

Then what is it you object to in "if the item in question is available to direct observation by a sufficient number of Wikipedia editors, the validity of the article and its contents can be determined directly?" If an article states "the website, wwww.thispageisred.com, glows red when visited," and assuming that this fact is of sufficient importance to enough readers and is generally known in a certain subculture---but it hasn't been published in Newsweek---what is wrong with editors accepting that simple fact (that they have verified themselves) for inclusion in the Wikipedia? This is my understanding of why the South Park articles are allowed to stand with their innumerable claims with no sources: The editors agee that "the descriptive claims are easily verifiable." No one here has suggested they should be deleted. Likewise for most of the claims in the OSR article or the early Blog article.

Your critique of the last point suggests to me that the descriptive term I used, "convergent common sense," is too confusing and unclear. By CCS, I meant the back and forth process of editing and negotiating edits that eventually arrives at a descriptive article that seems to comport with reality. Like the process called convergent evolution, the particular path may be somewhat random (depending on the particlar editors involved and when they arrive on the scene), but, if human words can correspond to human experience and humans can judge the degree to which they do so, eventually the words in an article will arrive at a description that "converges" on an acceptable description that is "evolutionarily stable," so to speak.

So maybe that last term needs to be dropped or changed. But the point is that the Wikipedia has brought into being a process of evolving, seesawing (back-and-forth) editing that tends to converge on an acceptable, relatively unbiased article, through an open source process that maximizes completeness and rapid change as knowledge develops. This process is what I meant by CCS. Kriegman 01:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Do be careful. Much of the ability of Wikipedia to be an authority comes from its being a clearing house of information instead of an originator of it. For example, with the "text icons" or rather the smileys and emoticons, there are several web resources out there to draw from. As for changes: Those are a matter of usage and common consensus. I strongly oppose any statement that "common sense" deserves to be included. However, I can accept a statement that a consensus of the editors of a page that something is reasonable and/or appropriate gives it legitmacy. In other words, "face validity" is a community decision, not an individual one. In that form, it may be a safety valve, as it can justify certain content that a small minority may find queationable and therefore a means of justifying thier own material which lacks this attribute.

• That's what I also meant by CCS. Like face validity, it has to be the "common sense" of the community of editors. No editor should be able to claim "it's face valid" or "it's common sense" and try to include his or her idiosyncratic views based on such claims. But if the community of editors agrees (as in the "South Park Standard" [SPS]) that it's face valid, or if the common sense of the community of editors converges on an agreement about something that is generally known/believed in a segment of society, then that fact (i.e., that that segment of society believes it) should be admissable. Kriegman 00:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Even so, I think that in general there should be a paper trail for Wikipedia articles, even if over half of it is digital.

• Aaargh! Did I miss something here? Have you all known (and tacitly or explicitly agreed) all along that a "paper" trail can be digital? If so, then that clarification would have gone a long way to solving my problem. If not, then that is a clarification that still needs to be made if it is agreed to. Kriegman 00:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You keep mentioning South Park, but that page seems to have a healty "External links" section.

• True. But not for more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the specific claims made, examples of which I presented above. It is the CCS or face validity of these innumerable, unreferenced claims that can be judged by the Apple Pie or SPS, i.e., easily discernable, community agreement about the face validity of the statements. Kriegman 00:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Simply put: If you try, you can find some documentation for anything on the Web, and some of it even now puts the Wikipedia article to shame. The cases where Wikipedia shines are the current event articles. I found the article on the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami to be a marvelous resource at the time, able to constantly integrate new sources of information and create a coherent and authoritative article on the event. On the other hand, I would be careful with the relativity articles. Hopefully the ones that I have has a hand in are fairly good now, but many others continue to need work.

Overall, I think that the edict that Wikipedians do source based research based on existing primary and secondary sources is a good one. It seems to me that there should be some flexibility in what counts as approrpiate sources based on the subject of the article and the literary environment related to it. After all, I would not rely on Science magazine to properly characterize creationism no more than I would rely on Pat Robertson to properly describe evolution (athough I would rely on each to describe their side's view of those subjects).

Perhaps my point is best made with the podcasting article. Here is something totally new and cool and suddenly popular. Yet look at the bottom on that page: It has a whole section of notes and references, making it a very well documented article.

• This is a perfect example of the problem. But I think it supports the need for a clarification of the NOR standard more than a validation for its current wording. Go to the earliest version of the Podcasting article. Pure OR, or so it would seem by the NOR standard. It was not, in fact, OR as the bulk of that very first article was not an idea or ideas created by the author; only the wording in the description of an existing phenomenon was created by the author. Today, someone employing the NOR standard could easily put the first version of the article (albeit a truly inadequate article) up for deletion as OR (which it was not). By the end of the first month, it had a plethora of links to Internet references and one to a published magazine article that had just been published that month. I would suggest that the NOR standard should be modified or clarified to officially acknowledge the validity of such a developmental path. And as you noted, this article was about a "suddenly popular" mass marketed phenomenon. For articles about phenomena that are only 100th (or 1000th) as popular, it may take much, much longer before they take more typical, acceptable Wikipedia form (though they may reasonably be expected to show some developmental signs fairly early on). Kriegman 00:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

We live in an age of information. There is no need to Wikipedia to be its ultimate source. Instead there is a need to Wikipedia to be common resource that people can turn at need, and which amongst other things will point them on towards the apprpriate primary and secondary sources for those who want more in-depth information. --EMS | Talk 04:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC) (Modified EMS | Talk 15:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC))

Edward, you and I, at least, seem to be closer to agreement. Let me revise my revised proposal for a clarification of the NOR in the following section. Kriegman 00:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

A Proposed Clarification of How NOR Is Employed

• For an article to be considered for inclusion in the Wikipedia, it must refer to persons, things, ideas, or beliefs of which there is an existing shared awareness or understanding in society as a whole or within a relevant sector of it. The Wikipedia should not be used for the creation of novel ideas or theories. An article must not be a primary or major source of the existence of, and the writing of the article must not be a primary or major source of the creation of the phenomena described in the article.

• For a scientific theory to be considered valid or significant, the standard for measuring the existence of such a shared awareness or understanding is publication in peer reviewed journals or the equivalent (e.g., academic press book publishers) or citation and discussion in such literature.

• For a cultural, social understanding or belief, the existence of such a shared awareness can be demonstrated by publication in newspapers, magazines, television, film, and the Internet.

• For some phenomena, if the item in question is available to direct observation by a sufficient number of Wikipedia editors, the validity of the article and its contents can be determined directly (e.g., the South Park Standard and the "apple pie" exemption). That is, "face validity" is established when the community of editors agree that an article contains "descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult."

• The standard for evaluating the phenomenon must be based on convergent common sense among the editors and thus is dependent on the medium in which the external reference appears and the nature of the phenomenon being verified.

By "convergent" we mean that the editors involved have negotiated (converged on) a wording that seems to be accurate to the community of editors.

By "common sense" we mean that editors use reasonable judgment in following somewhat different standards when evaluating the existence of different phenomena and the accuracy of their descriptions in the Wikipedia.

For example, a claim about the existence of a scientific theory may, in the negotiated judgment of the editors, only need to be backed by one citation in the NY Times or by many examples of websites and blogs where the theory is discussed, while a claim that the scientific theory has been shown to have validity or to be of significance in the scientific community would need more than one example of citations to that effect in approprite peer reviewed journals or the equivalent. Kriegman 00:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

In a way, I do and do not agree with Kriegman's last few points. Don't agree: I have witnessed enough conflicts here to be skeptical if not cynical about the common sense of editors, and am frankly a little scared to rely on it. Do agree: on the other hand, I think Kriegman is on to something. Maybe he and I actually disagree — I will have to await his response to this comment — but I hope that he and I may be close in this matter. However, I will put it differently. And I will take some time to do this, because it is precisely my thought-process that I want to share with people, and not just my conclusions. The way I see it, policies and guidelines have two functions at Wikipedia. First (and this is my minor point, I just want to get it out of the way), they are useful to newbies who want to accelerate their socialization into the wikipedia community. For what it is worth, I do not think our policies are consulted by as many newbies as often as I would like them to be. On the other hand, perhapos that is not such a bad thing as all of our policies, when put into practice, require nuanced interpretations and perhaps many newbies can learn more about our values and ideals from interacting with other editors than from reading our policies. Be that as it may, I think the second function of policies is they provide a text editors can appeal to when in conflict. The text provides an external (external to the editors in conflict) point of reference that may help them resolve their dispute. I am (in describing this second function) making an empirical claim: I am not claiming that this is a good or bad thing, I am just observing that this happens. I thinkmost of us can agree to this. But I will go further and say that this is a good thing, and go even further to point out what I believe is another good thing, a correlary: that policies are generally ignored when there is no conflict. Now, I know that even among people who may agree with me that this is empirically accurate (in the absence of conflict, many policies are ignored) that this is a bad thing; that we need to raise general awareness of policies, and so forth. Well, I can't really argue against such people. Since I have put some work into this policy, I can't just go ahead and say that I think people should ignore it. But this is not my point, my point is not that people should ignore it. My point is just that in the absence of conflict many people do ignore it, sometimes with the consequence that the article in question is not entirely compliant with every element of the policy. And the reason I do not think this is a bad thing, the reason I think this is an acceptable thing, is because I think when there is consensus I think we can and should be somewhat less strict about the rules. I know some people find my position irrational or hypocritical. I, however, see it merely as pragmatic. I share the concern that many people have about strict rules at Wikipedia. I believe that there needs to be room for people to act creatively and use their own judgement. I find it hard to believe that it is possible to write a rule that can and should be obeyed in every situation, and I think it is foolish to try to write a set of rules that take into account all possible situations because (1) we cannot foresee all possibilities and (2) even if we can foresee a possible situation, it may be impossible to be sure what is the right thing to do until we are in that situation, and if we tried to come up with a policy that would be uniformly and universally applicable it would be too long, overwrought, and too many people will find too many faults with it. So rather than opt for one extreme (no rules) or the other extreme (very clear and detailed rules) I opt for a third position, which is to have rules (or policies or guidelines) that are imperfect, but whose imperfections are forgivable because (1) people will not be consulting these rules all the time, and certainly will not consult them prior to every edit — people will consult them only when people are unsure as to what is the right thing to do (i.e. in times of conflict) and (2) even then the "rule" or policy provides a set of standards that people will still have to discuss and think about before being sure what the best way is to proceed. I admit that this is not a perfect system or a rational system but I honestly believe it is the most practical situation. To return to Kriegman, perhaps what I am saying is that in practice we do rely on the convergence of common sense, because we appeal to these policies only when it is clear that there is no "common" sense (i.e. when there is a conflict). To this extent I agree with him. HOWEVER, I do not think we should actually write this into the policy. to me, that would reflect just another attempt — noble yet foolish — to articulate the perfect policy. We should not say this, because the whole point of the rule, what I mzean is, the rule is only aperative when, this claim (convergence of common sense) is wrong (i.e. when there is conflict). And we do not need to say this because as long as there is convergence of common sence, no one will be called upon to read the policy anyway. Again, I know many people will think I am babbling nonsense or worse, hypocracy. But my position is principled: I am not interested in policies that, in the abstract, make sense. I am interested only in how to achieve a certain outcome. I think that the policy, for the most part as it is currently written, and given the realities of how things actually work at Wikipedia, which is that there is this semi-anarchic semi-self-regulating community of people who for the most part turn to written policies only when the semi-anarchic, semi-self-regulating M.O. is failing (e.g. a revert war), produces precisely the outcome that I think is most desirable. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. We shouldn't articulate what goes on when there's convergence. Almost by definition, our policies are written for situations where there's conflict, with people being referred to policy pages because other editors disagree with something they've written. Where there's convergence, I'd say let sleeping dogs lie. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, I agree with this, too. However, I think some clarification should be made anyway because making a clarification is consistent with the pragmatic approach Slrubenstein has spelled out. The clarification is intended to make the rule more effective when it is appealed to in a time of conflict. I had the experience of the OSR page being called something it is not, OR. When the conflict proved problematic, I went to the rule and it was unclear, i.e., it could not be used to arbitrate the conflict. The clarification is proposed only for that: To improve its ability to be useful in times of conflict, not to make it perfectly clear. If you read the clarification I proposed, it would be easy to think of many circumstances in which it is open to interpetation and negotiation.

The need for the clarification is illustrated by the fact that, in a time of conflict, the OSR page was called OR and deletion was suggested. I think it is pretty clear that there is a real phenomenon out there (people trying to find a model for developing a religious belief system that parallels or imitates what they see happening with successful open source software projects and the Wikipedia). I will soon add two paper published external references; and while this discussion was going on, someone (and I do not know who) added another nascent example of the phenomenon. Yet, it is a new phenomenon and external paper print sources, which seem to be absolutely required by NOR for almost any type of article, are few.

So when the conflict arose, the unclarified rule was not helpful. The clarifications I propose would simply prevent the rule from being invoked in a knee-jerk fashion. It could still be argued that the links (especially without the external published references that I realized could be cited) are insufficient evidence for the existence of such a phenomenon or that the phenomenon is unimportant. But the challenge would have to be more reasonable than: "No articles from peer reviewed journals or books by recognised experts are referred to concerning the phenomenon of open source religion," which was actually used as part of an argument for deletion.

As I have noted along the way in this proposal for clarification, the same exact reasoning could have been used to propose deletion of the early Blog and Podcasting articles. Furthermore, the argument would apply to much of the content of the South Park articles as well as to many other pages that simply don't have a problem because an editor is not in conflict over an unrelated (i.e., not regrading OR) issue.

The editor who invoked NOR wanted to include religions such as Wicca, Discordianism, and the Universal Life Church in the OSR article. While they do not copyright their contents and thus their notions are in the public domain and freely available to all, it seemed to be an error to me to equate "uncopyrighted" with "open source" in the sense that open source is meant by people who were inspired by the success of Linux, Apache, OpenOffice, and Wikipedia to try to create open source religions. Uncopyrighted existed long before these very unsual worldwide collaborations. And it is clear from looking at the linked examples of religions that call themselves "open source" and claim to be built on that specific model (unlike the three religions the NOR editor wanted to add) that they were consciously modeled on these recent Internet open source phenomenon, not on having uncopyrighted scripture (which all traditional religions have, i.e., many major versions of the Bible and the Koran have long had their copyright expire, if any ever existed).

One of the reasons OSR is under criticism is also the firm grasp (and defensive behaviour) a single editor is maintaining over the article. It doesn't help that that author is also the founder of the 'movement' most prominently featured, which has no good web presence — a conflict of interests.

If adding a NOR notice, in the hopes that it might attract more attention to the article, is considered an 'attack' upon the article, that shows how much original research the page contains. squell 15:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought the NOR notice was being placed there in preparation for a proposal for VfD, rather than to "attract more attention to the article" with the purpose of improving it by edits that diminish any OR it may contain. Kriegman 16:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I clearly mentioned on the talk page that I edited the NOR template to be more than an annoyance. Whether more attention results in deletion or improvement is besides the point. squell 17:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

But instead of focusing on that issue, the editor attacked the article using NOR, and tried to use that to undermine this distinction (uncopyrighted vs open source) when I used it to delete his addition of those three religions. When I went to the rule, it was not helpful in the conflict as it was insufficiently clear.

So, the proposed clarification is meant to do exactly what Slrubenstein and SlimVirgin agree works. Nothing more. Please consider the specific wording of the proposed clarification. Maybe it should be changed if it is too far reaching. (Though, personally, I do not think it makes things all that clear.) Kriegman 16:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I disagree, as I said before. The point about convergent common sense is particularly dangerous. Kriegman, I mean no disrespect with this, but you've made 184 edits to articles, and so the wikiworld may still seem like a happy, reasonable place to you. There's a lot of silly editing that goes on, and some seriously bad-faith stuff too. This is one of the policies that protects us from drowning in nonsense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. My attempt to retain the phrase "Convergent Common Sense" irks you as much as EMS. I'm not sure what you object to about what CCS is supposed to refer to. Apparently you don't want to even suggest that sense might be common because you know how uncommon common sense is. But, OK. Throw that out if we must. What about the rest of my proposal? The CCS part/phrasing is not necessary to prevent the problem I was having.

By the way, I had many anonymous edits before I decided that I should be up front about who I am. I wish more people would just use their names. It makes us all more honest, or at least it makes many people more polite/careful. Kriegman 19:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I oppose any change of this kind. Is there a particular edit you're trying to make and being prevented by the current policy? Sorry if you've mentioned that already, but I haven't read every word. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Or rather, an article I originated has been threatened with deletion by someone invoking NOR who does not seem to understand what I believe has been articulated here (that is, if I have come to understand the policy and its importance correctly).

The problematic interaction over the article and the need for some type of clarification (not change) of how NOR actually operates is described above in various places, starting in the middle of this page in the section with the bolded title, "Finally, an example, Open source religion: The article that is being attacked with NOR criticisms."

If the ensuing material is too much to wade through to find the references to the conflict and how the rule has been confusing, then just go back up to Slrubenstein's last comment and your response, ending with the line about "sleeping dogs," and read from there down; the issues are summarized in what follows from that point. (In that material, OSR = Open Source Religion.)

While the following should not substitute for at least reading from that point, here's another summary: The other editor was upset by me for deleting material he felt belonged in the article and accused me of OR because I am one of the founders of a particular open source religion (true) and have an investment in the topic and its importance (true). I countered by trying to explain the difference between the inspirational effect of open source projects (like Wikipedia) that have led to the attempts to create open source religions and material simply being uncopyrighted or in the public domain. He insisted that I was engaged in OR and such a label has been placed on that page.

I came here to modify the NOR policy. In the process, I came to understand it better and to realize that OSR can be made to conform to the letter of NOR more closely and that the letter of a policy is not always meant to be followed without reasonable interpretation. I then discarded my proposed modification and suggested, what I thought was, a minor clarification so that this type of wasteful, knee-jerk invocation of NOR in an unrelated conflict would not occur (and so that I could legitimately remove the OR warning from the article). Kriegman 22:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, first it's not appropriate to come and change policy just so you can add an article that you want to add. Second, I've only glanced at the article you mentioned (I'll read it more carefully later), but at first glance, it looks like a personal essay, something you couldn't publish here without being in violation of NOR, NPOV, and Verifiability i.e. all our editorial policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that I see the OSR article, I find it to be skirting the edge of what is encyclopedic. Lacking some notable level of acceptance and/or awareness of this concept in the community of religous scolars, this subject could fall under NOR a century from now. OTOH, Time magazine could do an article on it tomorrow and force there to be enough awareness to keep the subject encyclopedic for some time to come. Let's just say that I find it to be an odd concept, although my opinion in this regard counts for nothing in judging it under NOR.

Beyond that, I repeat that I strongly object to the idea of accepting a "Convergent Common Sense". I am willing to let a "community consensus" of the editors working on a page (or a set or related pages) be accepted, but if such a thing is to be written into the standard it should be done is such a way that the loss of said consensus destroys the permissibility of the item in question. In essense the goal of documenting this phenomenon would be to weaken its validity instead of strengthenning it.

To SlimVirgin: I don't think that you should completely hang your hat on this policy as-is. I think that there is room for improvement here. However, I have dealt with others who wish to place "nonsense" here as well as having willingly chosen not to present my own alternate ideas on physics here due to NOR. So I very much sympathize with your fears. However, the standards of acceptabilty do need to be reconsidered. In theory, I could place my work here immediately upon publication in a peer-reviewed journal, but I see that as still being inappropriate at that point. OTOH, other topics (such as religion) do not in general use peer-review, but instead only editorial review in their journals. Yet other topics (such as numismatics and Star Trek) may lack any formal scolarly work at all, but there still can be standards as to what consistutes acceptable sources for them. --EMS | Talk 17:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, though I'm not clear about the point you were making. Material in Wikipedia must have been published in a reputable or credible publication. What kind of publication it is depends on context. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifibility. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Question: Self contradiction in rules?!

I read (both from "NPOV" page and No original research pages):

"A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view." "The quality of an encyclopedia depends on its accuracy and reliability. " "The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. "

Which sounds sensible. Compare the above with the following rule:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

Thus, if someone digs up an original, verifyable source that directly *proves* that a common *viewpoint* is mistaken, strictly following this rule the encyclopedia should suppress the correct information and propagate the misinformation. Not only that would be objectionable (almost criminal), but also it contradicts the above rules. Obviously that paragraph urgently needs to be amended! (who has a suggestion?). - See "Schrödinger's cat" as an example of correcting erroneous popular belief.

Harald, Lausanne, 14/10/2005

I don't think that a consensus of the scientific community (or at least of the subset that deals with the relevant issue) counts as an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". Indeed, you are correct in that Wikipedia is supposed to be documenting such issues as they are understood by those experienced/knowledgable in the subject, and not just the popular misconceptions (although such misconceptions should be documented too, albeit as being misconceptions). So if an editor can demonstrate that the an article is in fact incorrect through appropriate writings/references, they can and should edit it and use their sources (which should now be documented in the article) to bring the other editors around.

OTOH, if there is a new viewpoint on (for example) the Schodinger's Cat problem that shows the current the current text to be incorrect but which is not subscribed to by those who deal with quantum mechanics, then it is inappropriate even if it is correct. This is because the decision on correctness belongs with the relevant field, and not the editors of Wikipedia. Until the practicioners of quantum mechanics have come to agree that the new interpretation is correct, that correctness is not a part of the human knowledge which Wikipedia has tasked itself to document.

So as awareness of the new viewpoint builds things will get to the point where it can and should be reported as an alternative view; and once general acceptance of the new viewpoint by the relevant field has been obtained, the new viewpoint can be presented as "correct" (or assumed to be correct) with the old viewpoint coming to be mentioned as being largely discredited. --EMS | Talk 16:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. To summarize:

• If you can show that Wikipedia is not properly descibing the common understanding for those knoweldgable in the relevant field, then the article should be corrected.
• If instead you wish to show that said common understanding is itself mistaken, then changing the article is inappropriate, and will remain so until that common understanding changes.
• This is because the common understanding of those knowledgable in the relevant field is usually the "human knowledge" that Wikipedia exists to document.
  • Also note that everyone with a new theory thinks that it is correct, but more often than not the theory's creator is its only subscriber.

--EMS | Talk 19:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, ems57. But as you did not directly comment on the point I raised, probably you missed it despite the example, so I'll push it a little to stress the point:

Suppose, for the argument, that *all* people who are knowledgeable in the field claim that Schrödinger believed that a cat is both dead and alive while in a closed box (for example because someone stated that about him in a journal that everyone reads), while an easily accessible paper in a respectable journal exists in which Schrödinger at the end of his life black on white states that he certainly *never* believed that. Such evidence should not be suppressed just because someone's opinion about his own beliefs is a "minority" view (worse: suppressing the truth *keeps* it "minority")! That would be in fact be fraudulous - fraud against ME as reader! - and against the purpose of an encyclopedia which is to present the facts. Very few people would appreciate an encyclopedia that imposes lying.

Almost certainly that is not what the discussed paragraph intended, but it's stated in such strong and general terms that it can easily be misapplied as I here described - IOW, that paragraph is not sufficiently well formulated. (See also: Wikipedia:What is a featured article)

I hope I now made it clear! Harald88 20:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Please think more clearly about what you're saying. If someone found a paper that clarified what S. had said, and in his own words, it would be published widely in newspapers, never mind peer-reviewed journals. And then Wikipedia would follow suit. It would be big news. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Please think more clearly about what I'm saying! The example was about an old fact that is collecting dust or simply ignored, not news or original research (only by chance I put it under here, that passage is under different headers). Such things are, by the way, far from hypothetical. 18:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Let me put it this way: In your above example, it is acceptable for the Wikipedia article to note that Schodinger claimed that he never believed that the cat was both dead and alive. It also should be noted that the field claims the he did believe that, and any supporting documentation for that view reported. (Do realize that people can and often do "edit" thier own past.) Furthermore, if the field unanimously claims that Schrodinger's Cat is both dead and alive while in the box, then the article must reflect that, even over Schrodinger's objections.

I assure you that I wrote exactly what I wanted to above. It is not the job of Wikipedia to report the truth. Instead it is the job of Wikipedia to report that which is believed to be the truth. If there is a controversy about what the truth is, then Wikipedia by its rules is obliged to report on that controversy, but under NPOV it cannot take sides.

OK, I'm happy to see that:

- I discuss with the original author of those words

- we basically agree

- you here provide a clarifying stament that I also agree with: "Instead it is the job of Wikipedia to report that which is believed to be the truth." Somehow I missed that on those places, and thus I was left with a wrong impression, as I assumed that the phrase was meant to imply something possible. Wikipedia can of course never *claim* to report the truth, and thus I understood it as perhaps implying "It is not the job of Wikipedia to report the truth, and never mind if that implies spreading misinformation.!

Gregor Mendel's rules of genetic inheritence would have been unsuitable for Wikipedia between 1860 and 1900. Einstein's theory of special relativity would also have been unsuitable in 1905 and 1906, but after 1908 that theory and its surrounding controversy would have been quite acceptable. If these are examples of "suppressing the truth" to you, then I have news for you: Wikipedia does that kind of suppression blatantly and without regrets. Wikipedia exists to report on human knowledge, and not the truth per se. Even if that one-man view is right, it cannot be reported as being so until is has come to be generally acccepted as being right.

I think that you chose an unsuited example (it was far from a "one-man"'s view in 1906, and perhaps the Wikipedia articles surrounding that subject could improve on explaining that), but I understand what you mean: a proposed theory is not a fact, and only when it has a certain demonstrated support it will be worthwhile to mention in an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It cannot know what will be proven to be correct. So it will be corrected as the relevant human knowledge is. I have seen enough people argue that the suppression of their odd idea is a suppression of truth to have gained much respect for NOR and this interpretation of it as a cornerstone of Wikipedia. It is a good policy, and whether you like it or not is working as intended.

I certainly agree with the policy; and as I commented higher above, I think it's too easygoing, for it still allows people to make propaganda for their own work after it is published.

On that point I largely agree with you. For example, Chris Hillman is trying to get a Wikiproject for GR going, and in it he seeks to exclude articles on obscure subjects, espcially that which have only been published on by a single author. Fortunately, it takes a certain amount of knowledge and perspective to even achieve publication, and if my experience is any indication that discourages people from placing their own work in Wikipedia. OTOH, there are circumstances where "peer-review" is an inappropriate or irrelevant standard, but that for the most part does not involve the sciences. None that less, NOR needs to be amended to become more flexible and realistic, albeit without becoming too draconian. --EMS | Talk 04:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW - My experience with original research, including my own, is such that I am sure that any view that cannot get out through other channels is failing to do so with good reason, meaning that it is therefore almost certainly incorrect. --EMS | Talk 22:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Also BTW (nothing to do with the above subject): It may also be for example that it is not sufficiently clearly or convincingly expressed - but then it would still hardly be useful for an encyclopdia in that form! :-) I myself experienced that if I express complicated stuff clearly and convincingly enough, I can get it published in a respectable journal even if it kills a meme that was spread by an "authority".

BINGO! That is why NOR works. That is also why I refrain from overly promoting my owm work. (Early on, I realized that it was my job to communicate, to get my ideas straight, and to jump through the hoops required to have a "good" theory and to get it published. Without having achieved that, you don't even begin to have material that Wikipedia can use.) --EMS | Talk 04:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I insist that it would be good to add that extra phrase, as it surely will improve understanding by newcomers like me (and we are the main target audience, right?) Best regards, Harald88 18:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Then suggest doing so explicitly, and as a new thread. Please be very explicit about what you will say and where you will say it. I would advise including surrounding text in the quote (with your addition italicized) so that people can see where it would fit it. --EMS | Talk 04:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I really think it makes more sense to stick to real cases rather than hypotheticals. But let's hypothetically travel back in time. It is 1906, and Wikipedia 1.0 (the version that existed on abacuses and chalk-boards) has an article on physics. Einstein publishes some pretty radical articles in 1905 but they are not generally accepted. Someone adds the theory of special relativity to the physics article. Let's say that the person is Einstein. Someone accuses him of violating NOR, and says "we can have a section on the Michaelson-Morley experiment, and we can have a section on Maxwell's equations, but this way you are putting them together is novel and unproven." Einstein replies, "No, I am not violating NOR, because I am summarizing an article of mine that was published." A general discussion ensues about whether it is in poor taste for Einstein to be using Wikipedia to promote himself, when really, we should wait until the scientific community has had time to evaluate his newfangled ideas. Someone points out that there may be a bit of hubris on Wikipedians' part, thinking that Einstein is really promoting himself by putting his admittedly published paper argument in Wikipedia, because no physicicst or physics student turns to Wikipedia as an authority. For three days a few people argue over how important Wikipedia is, until everyone agrees that in the future more people will read wikipedia, as soon as Jimbo buys a much larger abacus. Einstein puts his summary of his article back into the Wikipedia article. Someone deletes it again, just putting "NOR" in the edit summary. Einstein reverts the deletion, writing in capital letters "THIS REFERS TO A PUBLISHED ARTICLE." Someone points out on the talk page that this is not really an NOR issue because Einstein is right, it is a published article, but there is an NPOV issue because the article now presents Einstein's view as the truth. Another editor edits Einstein's paragraph down from five sentences to three, and adds "this theory has not achieved general acceptance by physicists." Einstein adds, after not, "yet." Someone deletes the "yet" and Einstein writes, on the talk page, "You are the ones engaging in original research, because you are claiming physicists do not accept my theory. What is your proof? Has some survey of physicsists been published?" The editor replies "I know because I am Max Planck." People are not sure whether or not to believe this user, and someone tries to find out if his chalk-board was purchased in Berlin, which would narrow the identity of the editor down. Someone else says "look, there is no published survey, but let's be reasonable. The article just came out. It hasn't been cited anywhere yet." Einstein deletes "this theory has not yet achieved general acceptance by physicists" and replaces it with "Einstein's theory represents the most recent scientific work on this topic." SOmeone reverts that and writes on the talk page that it doesn't matter whether there has been a survey of physicists true, but we have to comply with NPOV and this is the simplest and most reasonable way to handle that. Someone else adds to the talk page a message to Einstein, that if he can accept the "not achieved general acceptance," then everyone else will accept including his summary of his published article. Another person tells Einstein just to be patient, that if he is right physicists will figure that out eventually, and Wikipedia is an ongoing project and the article will of course continue to be edited over the coming years (and at an even faster rate, if Jimbo buys us more chalk). Einstein writes "Okay, I can wait. After all, time is relative!" The next day, Einstein puts double-brackets around "time" and starts working on that article (and promptly gets into an argument with a very young Martin Heidegger, but the argument turns out to be over style and not content). Slrubenstein | Talk 19:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that if Einstein had tried such a thing that Max Plank would have sent him a private note warning him that this does not look good and asking him to stop. More likely Einstein would have been so busy with his scientific work that he would not have even bothered with Wikipedia. Or if he had bothered with it it would have been to make sure that the articles on the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Lorentz contraction, and (possibly also) the work of Henri Poincaré were correct so that special relativity could be coherently discussed when the time comes.

Why do I say that?

1. Because I am trying something similar with my work on the GR pages (which also reflects my interest in somewhat strengthenning NOR BTW), and
2. This kind of stunt is done by people who are desperate to "get the word out". However, when you have publication in a prominent scientific journal (and Annalen der Physik was just that), there really is little more that you can or need to do to promote your ideas. (In fact, most people who try to get around NOR like that are usually complaining that they cannot achieve peer-review publication. Yet note the comments of Harald88 above, and my own agreement with that view even though I have not yet achieved peer-reviewed publication.)

--EMS | Talk 05:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that it was a joke, your answer is entirely sensible. Your point, "if he had bothered with it it would have been to make sure that the articles on the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Lorentz contraction, and (possibly also) the work of Henri Poincaré were correct so that special relativity could be coherently discussed when the time comes" is actually, I think, very constructive because it gives editors who are coming into conflict with NOR and feeling frustrated, a task that they might be qualified to do and could achieve some gratification by doing. My question: should something like this be put into the NOR policy (specifically, as a suggestion to those editors who feel thwarted or frustrated by our NOR policy and ownder how they they might contribute)? As to your comment "note the comments of Harald88 above" I am afraid I do not know what you are talking about; the above discussion is pretty complex. Should we just assume that you and I agree in principle and do not need to extend this discussion, or can you give me a clearer idea of what specifically is at stake, in the section of the discussion your reference, that I may or may not have anything to add to? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

clarification of "regardless of whether it's true or not"

See the above discussion point 10.

The following text is a bit obscure and can be misunderstood:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

It appears on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research (under the header "Disputes over how established a view is"),

as well as on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (under the header "Undue Weight").

Based on the above discussion I propose to add a clarification, as follows:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can create evidence for it or not!

Instead it is the job of Wikipedia to report that which is believed to be the truth, and if there is a controversy about what the truth is then Wikipedia is obliged to report on that controversy."

(Compare also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_a_featured_article : "comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral") Harald88 20:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this proposed edit. It takes a very concise and well-written sentence, and turns it into a much longer and less understandable sentence. Furthermore, it also impacts another standard which does not benefit from this edit at all.

I think that you have found the right place for this but chosen the wrong way of doing it. So let me propose something else: After the quote of the existing NPOV policy, let's add a sentence that reads

The point is that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to report the truth, but instead to report on that which can be verified as being believed to be the truth. Wikipedia can accept minority views, but not highly obscure and/or improperly (or un-) documented views.

Do realize that this is a sensitive matter. In general, the less done the better. However, a properly done addition on this matter could be a powerful tool in fighting those who try to get around NOR under the banner of "truth". --EMS | Talk 20:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, my intention was just to get the truck rolling! I'm OK with any good clarification that is in line with our above discussion, and your newly suggested text, if I understand well, is as follows:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

The point is that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to report the truth, but instead to report on that which can be verified as being believed to be the truth. Wikipedia can accept minority views, but not highly obscure and/or improperly (or un-) documented views.

I think this clarifies it well, thanks! Also, this seems to cover pretty well my objection against the current presentation which appears to disregard factually accurate information ("truth"), as well as your concern that the NOR rule should not be weakened or obscured. Harald88 22:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to me that the new paragraph you are proposing mixes up two different issues: first, how many people must support a particular view before we consider it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? Second, we must make clear, consistently, that Wikipedia is not the arbiter of truth but merely reports claims people make about what is true and false. The second point is I think a bedrock assumption at Wikipedia, and informs both the NOR and the NPOV policies. The first point gets into a grey area as it is making a relative judgement (if a million people believe it, we could probably all agree that it merits an article; if only one person believes it, we can probably agree it does not merit an article. The question is, where is the threshold? 50 people? 500 people? 5,000 people? 50,000 people? Half a million people? This is an important issue too. But it is different from the other issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Right - and I have the impression that both issues are cleared up by that addition. Thanks for your comments. Harald88 22:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Minorities

1. Editorial change: The more I look at it, the less I like the "(or un-)" that I placed in my draft. It seems to break up the sentence without adding any useful meaning to it. I call for it to be stricked in the final version.

Indeed, it's superfluous. Fine to me! Harald88 20:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Slrubenstein - I cannot figure out if you are supporting my proposed edit or not. To me, the ambiguity as to what is a minority view vs. an obscure view is useful. I really think that this is a case where "you know it when you see it". Overall, we need to trust the community aspect of Wikipedia to make appropriate decisions when the case is not cut and dry. I also think that some of the reponsibility for making more specific criteria needs to reside in the relevant Wikiprojects. This standard should be the basic one from which others are build. It cannot become highly specific and remain suitable for everything in Wikipedia.

--EMS | Talk 23:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

EMS, I honestly am not trying to be a pain in the ass. But can you please restate your proposal? There has been a lot of discussion going in different directions, and I don't think I know precisely (and concisely) what youa re proposing. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this was the proposal. Change: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not" to:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can create evidence for it or not! Instead it is the job of Wikipedia to report that which is believed to be the truth, and if there is a controversy about what the truth is then Wikipedia is obliged to report on that controversy."

I oppose this, because it introduces a complication and doesn't strengthen the sentence. It's unclear what "create evidence" means, or what reporting "that which is believed to be the truth" means. The proposal was then changed so that the sentence would instead read:

"The point is that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to report the truth, but instead to report on that which can be verified as being believed to be the truth. Wikipedia can accept minority views, but not highly obscure and/or improperly (or un-) documented views."

Again, introduces odd phrases. "Verified as being believed to be the truth" - but that's not what verified means in this context. "Not highly obscure ... or ... undocumented views" - no, just not unpublished ones. Sorry, don't mean to be negative, but I think the policy is clear as it is, and any dilution of it would cause problems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Slim. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Minorities/Undue weight: clarification of "regardless of whether it's true or not" - continued

[someone had inserted another subject header, which obscured the issue]

The original context (if I remeber well) is NPOV and the related requirement of proper documentation. It's also borrowed for NOR. In any case, this clarification makes it perfectly clear for me, the newcomer. Assuming that I'm "fresher" than you, my opinion on this counts stronger (is there another freshman here to give his/her opinion?). Why did you think that it will be unclear for newcomers? Apart of that, likely everyone will agree scrapping "not highly obscure" as unneeded. And how new are you? (see below).

As I misunderstood it as encouraging a careless attitude concerning providing "factually accurate information" for the readers, there can be little doubt that it's a *fact* that that phrase is unclear (maybe not for those who already know what it was supposed to mean, but that is irrelevant!)

Apart of that, ems57 and I think that it's an improvement like he proposed. Thus now the ball is in your camp to propose an improvement, if you also dislike the following (after reconsideration, I think that it should be "goal" instead of "purpose" - for ems57 to reconsider):

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

The point is that it is not the goal of Wikipedia to report the truth, but instead to report on that which can be verified as being believed to be the truth. Wikipedia can accept minority views, but not unpublished views.

Note that for me it would already have been clear enough without the last sentence.

Cheers, Harald88 22:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the last sentence is a serious issue for me, because the last sentence is making a point that is different from and unconnected to the first sentence. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That's good, it means that we're getting somewhere! :-)

Maybe ems57 wanted to use the opportunity to add something that he wants to clarify... and he thinks that it doesn't matter so much where? ;-) Harald88 18:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Harald, is your interest in this connected to the controversy a few months ago at Special Relativity? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

No, which controversy of a few months ago? Actually, I had a look at NPOV and related issues to get an idea if (apparently) minority opinions about QM by experts on that subject (e.g. Nicolas Gisin) are respected by Wikipedia. Anyway, I thought that it was clear from the subject header that that phrase about "true or not" needs to be clarified in order to prevent doubts about the ethics of Wikipedia as well as its consistency of rules, *independent of the subject at hand* - but now I notice that the subject header had been changed to only "minorities"! - thus I reinserted the original subject here above. Cheers, Harald88 21:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It was at the end of last year, an editor kept trying to add that the second postulate hadn't been experimentally verified (as he put it), and further, that it had been invalidated. Edited as 66.147.55.213 (talk · contribs), 4.152.255.86 (talk · contribs), Cadwgan Gedrych (talk · contribs), and possibly novakyu (talk · contribs). He himself had produced a proof, he believed, and couldn't understand why it couldn't be taken into account in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, afterwards I thought that you perhaps meant "mass", where I'm not even sure what is minority and what majority view. About the second postulate: Yesterday I saw that and also commented on that, as that editor was just as misguided as the editor who presented his/her own version (or some book's version) of the second postulate - which shows how essential it is to stick to the primary sources. Cheers, Harald88 10:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

transcript of a public hearing

Section reads: Primary sources...such as...transcript of a public hearing...
Can this be clarified to include declassified information, for example, declassified transcripts of closed door hearings now held in the public domain, or FOIA documents, etc. Thank you. nobs 15:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

These would count as primary sources. It ought to be noted, though, that novel interpretations of primary sources, and putting undue emphasis on some particular primary source which nobody else has noticed before, can be a violation of the NOR rule. john k 17:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Descriptive claims

To "descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult [need no secondary sources]," I added as an example of such a claim "the sun rose in the sky this morning." I also added to "any reasonable adult," the words "without specialist knowledge." And I added a bit about accuracy, so the paragraph now reads:

In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge (for example, that the sun rose in the sky this morning), and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.

In order to emphasize that this is the exception, not the rule, I repeated in the next paragraph that we publish on the basis of verifiability, not truth.

I did this because an editor today wanted to use the descriptive-claims paragraph to add material from a website on the grounds that any reasonable adult could verify that the material was there by looking at the site. However, not any reasonable adult could verify its accuracy. I feel relucant to add the "accuracy" rider because it takes us away from our "verifiability, not truth" principle, but then I suppose that's the point of the apple-pie exception: that in some cases commonly accepted facts may be published, though I'm still uncomfortable with it.

Also, I added the words in bold to this section: "In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this by the majority of editors on the page, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view."

I added that because the paragraph implied where there was any controversy whatsoever about sources, an account of it should be added to the article. This would mean that LaRouchies could insist every article contain an account of what LaRouche says about X, and why he isn't being allowed to say it. ;-) The "majority of editors on the page" qualification provides a safeguard. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I found the paragraph already difficult to grasp without that addition which you inserted without any discussion. For (except on the discussion page) a controversy about sources is hardly appropriate for a subject at hand; instead the account should concern the data as provided by the sources! Now you imply that if three editors on a page agree that a source is reliable while two disagree, that then the opinion of the two can be conveniently ignored! Thus I almost reverted this, but some other additions by you I liked, making the page overall not worse than it was - and the paragraph was already doubtful as it stood.

Anyway, clearly it needs re-editing! Harald88 22:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand your first comment: "For ... a controversy about sources is hardly appropriate for a subject at hand ..." ? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I trust that you did understand my second comment, an elaborated version of which can be found below (Grace).

What I found a bit fuzzy about the text as it stood and still stands, is that it seems to imply that a debate about the reliability of for example certain books *about* a subject must be presented on the subject page itself. I think that that's a side issue, and that only the source of what is considered reliable information needs mentioning... but I had no given it enough thought, for now I'd say: - except if it's the consensus that there is a disagreement about the subject, not (just) on the talk page, but in/between influencual literature. Harald88 10:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I'm concerned that your addition would allow minority views not to be included at all and would allow "editing by gang". Editors who wish to privilege certain sources need only acquire "a majority of editors on the page" (IOW, email their mates and get them to back them) to disallow a source. Personally, although I understand your intent (to disallow the insertion of views of people who just wander by and have an opinion) and support it (as you know, in Rachel Corrie, I deplore the inclusion of a blogger's view of Corrie's death solely on the basis of the blogger's being Jewish, and believe that our policy should definitely be written in a way that disallows that; but not in this way because on that page you have the majority but are wrong to consider Balint "reputable" in the sense that she is qualified to have an opinion (because that's at the root of it: you want to disqualify LaRouche's sundry opinions because he is no more qualified to hold them than any other observer)), I don't support policy backing for subjective measures for inclusion of views, whatever the reality on the ground is. You are opening the door for yet more votes. For instance, you can exclude David Icke's views on his own opinions simply by holding a poll to decide that he is not "reputable" (effectively this is what you did do on that page, but here you're writing policy to back it and that worries me, because I for one don't agree with you that a person's view on their own views is of less weight than others' views, even if one believes they are lying, misguided or stupid, because, remember, the truth or accuracy of what they say is not in question). Okay, while you are confident that you will be able to raise majorities to support your exclusions of views you don't want represented, what happens when the LaRouchies wake up and realise that all they need do is sign up a hundred of their cadres and they can junk your sources? Do you recognise the danger in that? Editing by consensus (in the true meaning of the word) is a good means to prevent pages from being hijacked by gangs. I urge you not to rewrite policies to encourage editing by majority instead, and to see the danger in it. Oftentimes, those in a majority simply do not realise that on other occasions they might be in a minority. The same is true of those who hold power: they all too often don't recognise the possibility of their disempowerment. -- Grace Note.

I too have problems with majority rule. But while consensus may be a worthy ideal it is not a solution. The problem? When editors seriously disagree as to the relevance or validity of a source. This is the issue at hand, this is the problem we need to address. The only solution I can see is a two-pronged approach: first, provide some guidelines (not rules) as to what we look for in a source. Such guidelines may not be sufficient to help people reach a consensus as to whether the source is acceptable or not, but they will (or should) at least provide a common framework for arguing over whether the source is acceptable or not. For such guidelines to have any use, they obviously must be substantive and not proceduaral. In other words, the point is not whether one person or five or fifty vote in favor of the source, the point is that people who favor a source favor it for one or more of a set of reasons we all agree are valid reasons for accepting, or reject a source for one or more of a set of reasons we all agree are valid reasons for rejecting. Maybe we do not yet have sufficient guidelines, but I think it would be worth the effort for a diverse group of editors to try to work out basic principles. Second, accept the fact that even when editors agree as to basic principles, criteria for accepting or rejecting a source, they can still disagree overhow to apply these criteria. Now, let us imagine such an argument. If five editors are arguing and four take one position and one takes another, I would probably be inclined to support the four over the one. Remember, the one can always seek mediation or arbitration. But if two editors are arguing, or if five editors are split, three-two, I see no choice but to include both sources and to explain to readers (1) that there is a controversy over the sources, and (2) what the source of controversy is. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree the majority thing is problematic, and I only included it because the way the sentence was worded made it more problematic without it. I also agree about the need to draw up guidelines for sources. We have guidelines already if you look at NOR, Verifiability, and Reliable sources combined, but they could be tightened. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the words "by the majority of editors on the page," but I feel it leaves this problematic sentence: "Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources."

This is fine where all the editors on the page are editing in good faith and understand what a reputable source is. But in cases where some editors are pushing for the inclusion of a bad source (a neo-Nazi tract, for the sake of argument), this sentence could imply that a discussion about the controversy has to be included. There may be other policies that would deal with this — NPOV says we shouldn't include tiny-minority views, for example — but this sentence potentially sets us up for policy clashes by saying that any controversy over sources that can't be resolved on the talk page should be discussed in the article itself. So one policy might say "Never use sources of type X" while this sentence says: "Well, go on then, you can mention X by saying there's a controversy." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

As it happens we have a discussion on the Battle of Waterloo about sources which illustrate this conversation but does not illuminate it. One editor paraphrasing David Hamilton-Williams and another editor, who has contributed information to the campaign based on an author/historian Peter Hofschröer, stating on the talk page that "[Hamilton-Williams] was accused of deception and F R A U D, by most acclaimed historians". As it was an argument I did not know, I had a Google and came across this book review which contains a letter by Hofschroer about Hamilton-Williams which starts:

As Col. Mallinson considers my book 'offensive and deeply flawed,' perhaps it would help to examine the reasons he gives for this. Firstly, he points out that I 'omit to mention' a work written by the person who uses the pen name 'David Hamilton-Williams'. The reason for my omission is quite simple - that person's work is questionable to say the least. ...

The trouble with this campaign is that given the level of nationalism in Europe this battle has never ended as far as academic history is concerned. One can not even appeal to the facts because as Wellington pointed out one may as well try to record what happens at a ball (dance) as in a battle, different primary sources often contradict each other. Crudely the views are: French: "Despite a military genius who played the best hand he had, as he was ill and had to work with second rate subordinates, so the French lost to overwhelming odds". The British: "Despite second class allies, the British held firm and beat the French - (with a little help from the Prussians), and that Napoleon up against a first class general was not as good as the French thought". The Dutch "The British could not have done it without us and our troops were at least as good as theirs". The Germans "The French were winning and then we turned up and beat them". The truth is a synthesis of all those views but historians tend to slant their books in favour of their own, often nationalistic, views. So one can legitimately slant the Campaign in any one of theses directions and claim 100s of secondary sources to support ones own POV. The POV is not a problem while the article was small because the broad canvas is agreed upon (Like the date and place of the battles). But the devil is in the detail. For example was Napoleon responsible for the cavalry charge at Waterloo. Was he at Waterloo as Wellington said "just a pounder after all"? Before Quatre-Bras: how long did Wellington delay his troop concentrations, was he at fault for doing so. At Quatre-Bras was Ney heading for Brussels or was he blocking the Nivelles-Namur Road? At what time did the battle of Waterloo start?(!) Some sources state 11:30 but Wellington says 10am. If it was 10am then the ground was not such a deciding issue as some have claimed, etc etc. I am not sure that anyone is qualified to asses which of the hundreds of versions of the Battle of Waterloo is "correct", and certainly not the editors of Wikipedia. The solution mentioned above will not work, if all the books and articles with all the POVs were to be mentioned for every aspect of the battle on the battle page it would cease to be a article about a battle and become a book review. It is just as well that Wikipedia is a work in progress :-)

--Philip Baird Shearer 10:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Right, that's a good example. We'd need a separate Waterloo-wiki to discuss all the POVs of all the sources, and all the controversies with them. But I don't know how we can word that sentence so as to make it clear that controversy is not, in and of itself, a ticket into an article. What counts as a decent source boils down to common sense in the end, but unfortunately you can't legislate for that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine. But "majority" is really No Good. And it's clear that not only a majority ;-) but nearly all editors on this page agree on that, and already for many days. I thus take the liberty to amend it into "by nearly all editors", until something better is found. Harald88 22:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Harald, I think that particular suggestion of yours was opposed above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

NOR vs. photos made by Wikipedians

The page needs to be edited to reconcile the NOR policy with Wikipedians who create primary sources by snapping a photo of something:

• Primary sources present information or data, such as ... photographs....
• Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed.

Tempshill 23:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, good point. It would have to be worded carefully though. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

After thinking about this, I think our acceptance of editors' photos differs from NOR radically enough that it needs its own section. I think this will be noncontroversial, but here:

Original pictures

Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from the NOR policy; Wikipedia editors have always been encouraged to take photos and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL, to illustrate articles. There are several historical reasons for this:

• Pictures generally are used for illustration and do not propose ideas, the core reason behind the NOR policy.
• Due to copyright law in the United States and its relationship to the work of building a free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can find, take, and use. Wikipedia editors' photographs fill a needed role.

A known disadvantage of allowing original photos to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the truth being illustrated by the photo. Such manipulated photos should be prominently noted as such and, if not, posted to Images for deletion.

Thoughts? Edits? I'll post over on WP:VP Policy about adding this. Tempshill 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, but kind of a no-brainer. Have there been problems with this? -- SCZenz 19:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Only that "photographs" is currently listed toward the top of the NOR page as an example of unallowed original research. Tempshill 18:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Considering the skills base we have to hand I don't think detecting photo manipulation will be a problem.Geni 19:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Photos that don't present new ideas aren't original research. Period. And photos generally aren't primary source anyways, the object being photographed is.

Neither are manipulated photos, that would be a NPOV problem and is no different than finding photos, charts and graphs that have been manipulated for POV from outside sources. SchmuckyTheCat 19:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think photos can in effect constitute "original research." Here is what I think the policy should be: If an editor adds a photo toillustrate a point that is already made in the article, if that point itself does not violate NOR, then neither does the photo. However, if the editor adds a photo to make a point that is not already in the article, and that has a verifiable source, then the photo does violate NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you give an example? I am having trouble thinking of one that isn't covered already by NPOV. Tempshill 15:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you and other editors think that the current policy as stated covers the hypothetical I just gave, well, I guess then we do not need to change the policy! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

So you can't come up with an example? I just can't think of one. Tempshill 18:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is an example for you, see: [1] which is posted at John_Kerry#2000_Presidential_Election I think it's a posed photo with no real proven date or location of origin, added simply for pro-Kerry POV. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not original research; if it were, we couldn't have any photographs taken by Wikipedians, and that is certainly not the intent of the NOR rule. May as well continue to make POV battle there, since you've been doing it all along. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean hypothetically, or on Wikipedia? On Wikipedia, I honestly have not tried. And I don't think I need to — all that matters is whether the policy is written in such a way that it would cover this situation if it ever came up. But if you mean hypothetically, well, Let's say I took a photograph of a famous politician while/she was looking distracted, and added to a page along with the caption "X is often easily distracted at public events" I would call that original research. Or if I wanted to argue that I had discovered a new species of rodent, and had a photograph to prove I had seen an anomolous rodent, and put it in the article on rodents and claimed this was a new species, well, that would be original research. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• a photo of a distracted politician sounds like an NPOV problem, not a NOR problem.
• a photo of a rodent is just a photo of a rodent. the claim of it being new is in the text. The text that says "I discovered a new rodent!!1! could easily be deleted, the caption of the rodent changed to "A photo of a rodent." Unless you glued googly eyes (sometimes I am amazed what we can type in to wikipedia and find an article on) to it's butt, it's still just a picture of a rodent that we have no problem with - it "makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims" SchmuckyTheCat 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason why an NPOV violation cannot also be an NOR violation. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The photo shouldn't count as original research -- but the caption might. What's the basis or saying that this politician is often easily distracted? If a political opponent or other notable source says it, and the article properly attributes the opinion, then the photo is merely illustrating it. If no notable source says it, then the article shouldn't say it, with or without a photo. NOR should allow use of the photo but shouldn't allow the photographer to say, "I attended five different events and this was typica of how he looked at each one." Of course, selecting the photo for inclusion in the article just because it's unflattering would generally be POV, regardless of the source of the photo.

What's the alternative to allowing editors' photos -- that all photos used must be available somewhere else, online or in print? Would that mean that a Wikipedian who takes a photograph can upload it to Photobucket, and then it's OK to use it here? That seems pointless. JamesMLane 04:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, that would count as "self-publishing" and does not meet the requirement of being published by reputable 3rd party. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If that is actually a criterion that should be followed, then we should start blocking things from entering Wikipedia or deleting far more than merely things that might copyright-infringe. Consider the second image in spoon which is sourced from FreeFoto.com. By the "reputable 3rd party" argument, certainly everything that has come from FreeFoto (pretty much) should be removed from Wikipedia pronto. Courtland 05:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Seven words is all it might take

Let's take a concrete example ... what wording of the policy would tolerate the continued existence of the three images now associated with spoon? One image is from a Wikipedian. One image is from a free online resource of images. One image is from the US Government. Let's set aside the complications inherent in interpreting facial expressions and take care of a simple case first.

begin quote from policy

Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

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".

end quote from policy

I would propose the following text insertion directly after "data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication;":

unique observations that are not otherwise corroborated;

These seven words would seem to unlock the box some of us see Wikipedians in. It is quite safe to say that a person photographing a spoon and saying "this is a spoon" would be an example of an observation that non-unique and corroboratable (looking at the picture I can safely say, yes, that is a spoon and I've seen one like it on most days). The facial expressions matter is something altogether different. This observation could very easily be either unique or so sparsely experience as to be practically unique such that a person looking at the photo would not be able to corroborate that in fact that expression was seen in the named circumstance. Such a photo does not pass the test - it cannot be corroborated and it is a practically unique experience. Now, this criterion only applies to information from Wikipedians added directly to Wikipedia and not to news services or other sources of record (just to be pedantically clear).

The seven words are something of a skeleton key in that they don't merely open the photo box. I took a brief look up the page here and saw a reference to a dispute over where Billy Joel lived. In the end of the thread there essentially these seven words were invoked in spirit; prior to finding of sources that corroborated the personal observations of a personal acquaintance of Billy Joel, only sources that contradicted him were found and it was a case of "you say one thing but evidence says something else - and we don't know why that evidence would be wrong" (paraphrased), but once sources were found that agreed with the person's personal experience, all was right with the world; in other words the person was no longer in a "he said - she said" situation but had corroboration on his side. My gut says "add the seven words" and turns a little bit at addition of a section for the present purpose. I think User:SlimVirgin's reminding us to word it carefully need not be construed to mean word it exhaustively ... in this case I think that more words are not a better course to take. Seven words seems about right. Courtland 04:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Creative Crackpottery Citing Legitimate Sources

How about editors who distort standard reference works? An experienced editor has told me there's no Wikipedia policy on academic dishonesty.

I've tried to reason with two such people on the Joan of Arc article. To give an example, the context here is the fate of Joan of Arc shortly after her capture. The duke of Burgundy's men captured her. A few months later the English bought her from the duke of Burgundy. These editors say French king Charles VII tried to ransom her. Every part of the footnote is false:

Note 3: Several surviving documents state that Charles or his faction tried to induce the Burgundians to ransom her - e.g., on 14 July 1430 the University of Paris sent a letter to John of Luxembourg stating that the Armagnacs were attempting to obtain her by ransom or other means (see Barrett's "Trial of Jeanne d'Arc", p. 9; and Pernoud's "Joan of Arc By Herself and Her Witnesses", p 158). An entry in the records of Antonio Morosini records a similar account. But just as Charles VII was never given the chance to ransom his own cousin the duke of Orléans (since Henry V's last will and testament had forbidden it - see: Pernoud's "Joan of Arc: Her Story", p. 193), the to be allowed ransom, and the Burgundians were just as opposed to Joan as their English allies were.

The above citations actually say:

• The letter from the University of Paris refers to English attempts to purchase her.
• Pernoud and Clin mention Henry V's will in passing in a completely different context. The document is irrelevant. Even if it were applicable to English policy, the duke of Burgundy was not bound by it.
• The Morosini journal describes a rumor that Charles VII threatened retaliation against English prisoners of war. Morosini was a visiting Italian merchant, not a diplomat. No evidence survives that such a threat was carried out.

These distortions were not created in ignorance. When the fraudulent footnote was in its infancy I posted an excerpt from one of the same books they cite. I excerpted Morosini's actual journal entry with Pernoud and Clin's subsequent comment (pp. 97-98):

The slight tremor of this passage is the sole piece of evidence for the suggestion that Charles VII made any effort on Joan's behalf. Even here there is no claim that he himself attempted to ransom Joan, but only to prevent her delivery to the enemy. No documentary evidence suggests that the king offered a ransom or made any effort whatsoever to free Joan of Arc.

Pernoud and Clin speak for the academic consensus.

One of these two editors has been sitebanned and posts from an anonymous IP address. I requested mediation after I found a note where the other one admits to fabricating a nonexistent source document. Admin deleted that edit but has not moderated. These editors refuse to cite sources for most of their strange assertions. I don't want to put myself in trouble with the three edit rule.

I'm new to Wikipedia. What's your advice? Durova 05:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're in the right and if you can cite sources, then the truth will out - keep correcting, cite sources, request mediation again if necessary, and demand that they cite their sources. In factual questions like this it's unfortunate that tenacity is important, but it's so on a wiki. Tempshill 21:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Photos which are intended to make a specific point

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.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Do you suggest that Wikipedia adopt a "list of reputable sources" from which information can be taken? Or the obverse, a "list of disreputable sources" from which information can never be taken for use here? Either case opens a significant Pandora's box of its own. Courtland 06:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No. what I am suggesting is that photos "intended to make a specific point" are easy to spot and should be barred, unless a condition of "previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party" has already been met for the photo in question. The "reputable" comes from the NOR policy as it currently stands. 3rd parties such as "Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) do have problems with the "reputable" angle, but have also a problem with "disinterested". What are we do to, let rogue wikipedians run amok, uploading photos which they have personally staged and taken? Of course all of the rouges will say "I didn't stage (or photoshop) that photo - I found the scene that way".... See this photo which caused an editing dispute at John Kerry. Granted it was a pro-Kerry photo, but it easily could have been a anti-Kerry one. What if the photo had said "don't support John Kerrry", with some symbols other than bras (perhaps guns?). Then what? The only constant which can be monitored for is whether or not a photo is "intended to make a specific point", as this particular one was ("support John Kerry"). Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You say above "What are we do to, let rogue wikipedians run amok, uploading photos which they have personally staged and taken?" Do you think this question and the position it implies has some conflict with Wikipedia:Assume good faith? The assumption of good faith is as important to the functioning of Wikipedia as the assumption that some (few, really) folks will try anything to sway public opinion, including using Wikipedia as a tool to that end. In reading through some of these related discussions I do think that this assumption of good faith is getting unfairly tossed into the back seat in favor of "wikiprotectionism" ... protecting Wikipedia content at all costs (I'm not accusing you of consciously ignoring the "assume good faith" doctrine ... just reminding that it is a common and early victim in these types of discussions, bearing a reminder as to its importance from time to time). Courtland 18:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I do not. The uploading and attempted use of a "loaded" photo is prima facie of bad faith. Those who do it, are rogues. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• OK, and if a person uses one of the free sites to store images (a personal store) that are some appropriate and some not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, then their desiring to draw on their primary store rather than building a second one is in bad faith or is it rather closer to laziness? I'm not trying to bait you, I'm just looking at the nooks and crannies of activity that might on first glance be construed as bad faith but only as a consequence of assuming an inaccurate intent. Courtland 02:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• It strikes me this entire hypothetical problem should be dealt with in the same way that we currently deal with quotes that are taken out of context and unfairly portray the facts of an event or the opinions of an individual. If someone were to insert into the John Kerry article the quote, technically correct, that he said "I ... am ... dumb!", then we'd remove it as factually incorrect, not representing the whole of reality. We'd do the same if someone inserted into the article a paragraph about a Nazi leader supporting Kerry. Technically it's true, but it's insignificant and should be removed (and would be). We'd do the same thing with photos which in this way presented a skewed version of the truth as a whole. Incidentally, IMHO this conversation should probably be happening at WP:VP on the Policy page rather than on the NOR discussion page. Tempshill 20:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Original pictures

After a week with no serious objections and a lot of "well, duh" comments, I added the "Original pictures" section clarifying that Wikipedia editors are still encouraged to snap photos or draw diagrams and upload them, and this doesn't count as OR.

The John Kerry bra photo poster inspired me to further clarify that (a) uploaded photos that are otherwise original research are still banned; my example was somebody who draws a diagram of a hydrogen with extra particles in the nucleus because he thinks there are; and (b) all uploaded photos still are covered by Wikipedia's other guidelines and policies, notably factual accuracy and NPOV.

Thanks all for the discussion. Tempshill 21:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tempshill, that was a good and long-overdue edit you added about images. Thank you. I tweaked it just a little, so I hope you don't mind. I added "another free licences" to GFDL, as others are acceptable. I deleted "historical" reasons, because they're just reasons. I added do not propose "ideas or arguments" because I always add that whenever I'm describing NOR, just to hammer it home (delete it if you feel it's gratuitous). I deleted United States because it's actually copyright law in other countries that tends to cause a problem. I added that, prominently noted or not, manipulated images should not be used to illustrate articles. (Do you agree with this, or did you mean to say something different?) And I deleted factual accuracy, because we don't have a policy requiring that (because determining factual accuracy would involve original research); but we have a verifiability policy, so I added that instead.

Feel free to tweak around with my edits as you see fit, and thanks again for coming up with something so clear and useful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting about factual accuracy. I guess that rather than being a formal policy, it's an implied one; if something nonfactual is posted, after all, it ought to get shot down immediately. Actually in the case of Wikipedia editors' pictures, I think something needs to be said about factual accuracy rather than verifiability (see below) because an original photo is not verifiable. Tempshill 18:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a factual accuracy policy?

SlimVirgin commented when he deleted a sentence about it (from Tempshill I think), that we don't have a factual accuracy policy. But any self respecting encyclopedia should have such a policy! Thus: 1. Is that correct (is that accurate, pun intended!) 2. If so, where to launch a proposal for such a policy? Thanks, Harald88 23:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Harald, SlimVirgin is saying that in place of "accuracy" we have "verifiability." Please read our Wikipedia: Verifiability policy and tell us if you are satisfied, or unsatisfied, that it is sufficient to achieve the effect you think is so important to encyclopedias. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

(viat edit conflict) That's certainly correct. We use verifiability, not truth, as our standard. Having a factual accuracy policy would be unneccessary (and, in fact, impossible), so a proposal for such a thing would not get much support. I hope. Friday (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the precisions! With "factual accuracy" I mean of course accuracy of verifiable information ("facts"). I have the feeling that there may be something missing, but I'm not sure how to put it onto words right now. Something relating to the accuracy with which the verified information is transmitted in Wikipedia; Verifiability doesn't obviously imply that the rendering must be accurate. There can be a preference for popular phrasing at the cost of accuracy. For example, I could not (or hardly) convince the GRT editors that as -technically- GRT was according to Einstein in 1915 not a "theory of gravitation" (for which I cited factual, verified information), Wikipedia should not simply state that GRT is the theory of gravitation that Einstein published in 1915. OK I'll read the verifiablity policy again. Harald88 12:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, this might be an occasion to look at the verifiability policy and see if it needs any fixing up. In the past year we have tidied up the NOR and Cite Sources policies. I know SlimVirgin has put some good work into Verifiability. I hope it is clear and makes sense to Harald. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Harald, a factual accuracy policy would directly conflict with the NOR policy. What we do is cite reputable sources, and hope that what they say is accurate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, that's indeed what I do too, but many editors don't seem to care much... I also agree with Deco. Harald88 12:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

All that said, if there are authoritative, rational doubts about the factual accuracy of some of an article's content, this should at least be noted in that article. We can't hope to be right all the time, but we can at least qualify statements that are verifiably suspected to be incorrect. Deco 01:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"...although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages"

This seems like a common practice, though perhaps there is a nuance not apparent to me in the comment. Is the idea that "it is in poor taste" to argue for your own theory on a talk page, so as to influence the weight it is given in an article, in contrast with

• clarifying your own theory informationally, about which others might be presently writing about
• speculating where/whether relevent theory might be found elsewhere, in planning the flow of an article, "I always wondered whether that moon landing wasn't faked, It would work like this....Anyone ever hear of something like that?"
• idle speculation in discussing an article and general exchange of information

Comment appreciated -SM 21:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Smaines, the talk pages are there to discuss article content, and no one's personal theories are allowed in articles, so there's no reason to discuss them on talk pages. We can't stop people from doing it, but it's discouraged. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, SlimVirgin, but can you comment on the four (one against, three for) points above? -SM 12:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Would this qualify as OR?

Several (largely unregistered) editors have apparently simply been adding things to two lists of examples (on Wise Old Man and, until recently Hero) as they pop into their heads. Would unilaterally deciding that "Johnny Tsunami's Grandpa" and "Peppy Hare" are the Wise Old Man as defined by Jung count as original research? Or that a character in the Epic of Gilgamesh counts as being a "Wise Old Man in popular fiction"!? elvenscout742 22:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"OR refers to OR by WP editors"?

This definition of OR, right at the outset of the article, is not apt:

Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia.

First, this defines original research (boldface) in terms of something different which is also called "original research," which is confusing. For purposes of this discussion, let me distinguish them, so the above definition is:

OR1 refers to OR2 by editors of Wikipedia.

This is still inadequate. What's intended is: Don't use Wikipedia to publish your own OR2. But you shouldn't publish your friend's OR2 either.

So all reference to whose OR2 it is should be scrapped, because it's irrelevant.

One might argue that any OR2 appearing in Wikipedia is always OR1, since it was found and placed there by a Wikipedia editor. But that's misleading. OR2 might be some gossip that everyone is talking about. If a Wikipedia editor reproduces the gossip, which he learned effortlessly, it doesn't seem like "research."

This comment does not apply to the draft rewrite of the article, which has eliminated the problem.

—Urielw 13:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Untested theories?

From the article:

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....

Why "untested"? Isn't a tested theory that has not been published in a reputable publication also original research? Why not drop "untested"?

—Urielw 13:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that you're right: if I test my own original theory with a voltmeter, it's still original research. The word "tested" is No Good. Thus: delete "untested", and replace ; by (). Harald88 22:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

My impression was that here "tested" means not "verified by experiment" but "verified by peer review or some other expert scrutiny". Deco 02:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If so, then one should write "unverified" or "unpublished". Harald88 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

References/external links name-change proposal

There's a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#References_title_misread_as_non-web_External_links to change the References header to "Sources", and External links to "Further reading". So far, the proposal has been accepted by all the editors on the page, but because Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy page, I'm putting it out for further discussion before changing it.

The reason for the proposal is that using "References" and "External links" is confusing. Sources are supposed to be listed under References, and any further reading is listed under Further reading or External links. But many editors think that any external links, whether used as sources or not, should go under External links, so then they list any material that isn't online, like books, under References, even if not used as a source. To cut through all this confusion, the proposal is to change the headers to Sources and Further reading, which are self-explanatory, and don't make the online/offline distinction. Comments would be welcomed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources and Further reading: Good idea! -- I was also confused by References and External links... Harald88 22:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought that it was fairly simple. "External links" meant anything that could be looked up on the internet and quoted from (whether it was used in the article or not) while "References" meant that it was something which could not easily be referenced (such as a book). Sources that are available over the internet and quoted or referenced directly can be referenced directly with a direct link.

yes, that's what I understood from Slimvirgin. References that are available over internet are hopefully given with an external link anyway. Moreover, often an internet address is found later (this happens more and more), thus paper references are regularly substituted by external links. Therefore it's useless and confusing as well to try to split that up. Harald88 16:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Neither the References/External links distinction, nor the Sources/Further reading distinction is whether the citation "was something which could not easily be referenced (such as a book)". References/Sources are cited in support of specific points in the article, and External links/Further reading are simply of further interest. Since some editors do not summarise their references, but only cite them inline (if at all), the distinction has become unclear. smaines 18:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Very well-stated, smaines — thanks, Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 20:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree to change

1. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
2. smaines 18:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Disagree to change

1. Zordrac 14:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to move the votes above to Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#References.2Fexternal_links_name-change_proposal. Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Original research and disputes of verifibility

I would like to know where we stand with regards to disputes about the accuracy of external links. As I understand it, original research means something that someone just "knows", whereas external links mean that something is researched. If the external links are disputed, then this is a dispute about verifiability, and assertions of original research are incorrect. If an article about something is verified by links to its official web sites, then I would suggest that that does not count as original research. If the article is then verified as notable by referencing third party reviews, alexa rankings, and noting important historical significance, then I do not think that either of these rules should apply. Case in point in the discussions for the Vfd of planes of existence (chat site) where assertions have been made that it is original research in spite of over 50 references, similarly with the Vfd of lintilla (chat site). I do not think that it is appropriate to make such assertions in these cases. I think that they can be misused to try to steamroll votes, and that they probably were used in this way in these cases.

I would like to see the policy modified to prevent such misuses. Zordrac 14:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say the only case in which original research covers external links is when that page is owned by the Wikipedia contributor who links it. It is, as you say, for Wikipedia generally more a case of accuracy and verifiability than it is original research. That said, it is original research in the larger sphere of the web, which permits this (in a way this is a demonstration of the need for this rule on Wikipedia). Deco 02:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Limited cases of original vocabulary

Old section title: Taking an article with a proposal and inviting others to modify it. The original author modifies the article before others do so that his or her proposal becomes an "example" inside what could become a neutral point of view article with well organized references.

Will it be ok to add an adjective to a regular, well known term as to be descriptive of a "category" of a certain thing, such as "Distributive" Income Tax, even though the meaning of the adj. + term, though utilitarian and good for comprehension purposes, hasn't been spoken in those same words?

See Distributive Corporation Tax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmarinas86 (talk • contribs)

I don't understand the question. Jkelly 01:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Neologisms in article titles are never okay, per naming convention. In article text, if it's clear or explained, it might be okay. For example, some proof articles define a term "temporarily" to ease explanation. Deco 03:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Facts verifiable by Wikipedia readers

What happens when a fact can be verified by any Wikipedia user by performing a simple task? In The Warden (software), I added a statement that Warden is also in Warcraft III, Starcraft, and Diablo II. The problem is that there is no source for this anywhere but on Internet message boards of dubious quality. However, this information is actually verifiable, despite the lack of sources: if you open Warcraft III's game.dll, Starcraft's Battle.snp, or Diablo II's D2Client.dll in Notepad, you can search for the string WardenClient.cpp, proving that Warden is in these games as well. (World of Warcraft's WoW.exe also has this string.) -- Myria 06:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It must be verifiable using third-party sources. The software manufacturer would have it on one of their product-description things. I would add it, if I were you, and hope no one challenges me and makes me dig around for the source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I would put something like this:

Simple reverse-engineering of Warcraft III, Starcraft, and Diablo II indicates that these games may also use The Warden.

This is more accurate, since the string's presence isn't proof in and of itself. You can put the full details on the talk page for fact checkers to use (I don't think it's necessary to include such minutia in the article). Admittedly this could be seen as original research. Deco 07:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I like this, so I implemented it at The Warden (software). Thanks Deco. -- Myria 05:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a how-to, but if you mention an easter egg like feature (which I assume this character is) then a how-to on the talk-page might help as well - the software itself would be a primary source. SchmuckyTheCat 23:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Original Research vs Copyright Violation

I'm having problems with the "no original research" policy, particularly when it comes to wanting to include tables in articles. For example on Poker probability (Texas hold 'em) a table of probabilities for hands is obviously appropriate. However, to take a table from a recognised expert is probably a copyright violation. Attempting to disguise the fact just makes it plagiarism. Generating the table yourself is original research. Similarly, what do you do when there is one excellent source which says all there is to know on a topic? Does your article just become "See the following article"? Do you offer a summary of the article, citing every sentence back to the original source? Do you say, "According to ..." and provide a series of quotes instead of a genuine article? What if there are no "reputable sources" on a topic, simply because reputable authors don't write about such topics? Computer games and strategy, cheating at various sports, etc etc? Is google a source? I would like to say in Paris that this city is frequently referred to as "The most romantic city in the world". Google says that 92% of pages containing that phrase also contain "Paris". Whereas only 1% contain "Venice", for instance. This seems to "verify" that the claim is correct. How on earth would you find a reputable source that also verifies the claim? (Note here the 'claim' is that people call Paris that, not that Paris is actually romantic...) Responses very welcome! Stevage 14:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Stevage, starting with the easiest first, yes, Google is a source, especially for issues like the one you mentioned, and it's fine to say Paris is often referred to as the most romantic city.

On the issue of there being only one source, it's a question of writing it so that it's clear you're relying on one source, but without repeating it unnecessarily. So that boils down to good writing.

Regarding the table, it would be original research to insert your own figures, though you could create your own table and insert the figures of an expert, being sure to attribute the figures to him, just as you would with any other type of information taken from a specialist.

Does that help? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Slim, yes that helps a lot. Could you give an example of "writing it so that it's clear you're relying on one source"? Stevage 15:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't offhand think of one, but I'd be happy to take a look at the page you're thinking of, if you have a particular one in mind; and if you don't, I'll let you know the next time I come across a single-sourced article where the issue of the single source is made clear without being overwhelming. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I can imagine only two cases where one would rely on one source. First, it happens to be the only source you know. In that case, just provide the proper citations, and add a message to the "talk" page that you invite other editors to add to what you wrote drawing on other sources. Second, you are writing about a question or issue that, for the moment, only one person has raised. In that case, you can write something like, "Recently, x has argued that ... The following section draws heavily on her recent book, in order to provide an accurate account of her argument..." or something like that. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I will follow that advice. I'm still struggling a bit with this notion of "original research" - perhaps it is the title. At university, we regularly wrote "research" essays where we visited the library, collected quotes and wrote an essay in support of a conclusion. Since our essays were new in some sense, I would have called them "original". However this seems to be exactly what wikipedia strives to be - sources drawn together in support of questions the article itself raises. So presumably that is *not* "original research"? OTOH experimental research is unambiguous. Lastly, the word "introduce" is used four times in defining "original research" but is not defined. When you "introduce" a theory, it could mean either the theory exists already but is being "introduced" to readers (eg, an introduction section!), or it could mean the theory is really brand new and is being introduced to humanity. Could I suggest we use a more precise term? Stevage 00:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

To continue my tale of struggle, I note that "neologisms" are not allowed. In other words, users must not invent words. But what if a word is in use, but has not yet been reported by "reputable sources"? I suppose my problem may be that I want to contribute to Wikipedia by recording information which I have come across but which does not exist in a well-organised encyclopaedia like Wikipaedia. If a high quality article on the topic already exists, is it necessarily worth repeating here? Hmm. Stevage 00:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it would help you if you just bear in mind that the point is to prevent our own views from entering articles. Reread the policy from that perspective and see if it makes more sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think I can see the intent, but the means of achieving that is something else. Insisting that every contribution be referenced somewhere else already certainly reduces original bias and crackpot theories. But it wipes out a lot of useful, yet unpublished (or unfound?) information, too. Stevage 17:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying the policy cannot be improved (but, since what you read is the process of a very long collaboration between editors, raise your proposed changes here first, and allow for much discussion) — but Wikipedia is really not meant to be the place for publicizing unpuublished research. For all I know, Stephen Hawking wants to add to our article on black holes some new musings he has been having. I sure don't question their importance, but this just is not Hawking's own blog or personal webpage. He has to publish it in a respected publication first. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What about the case where something is clearly not a "novel narrative" or a "new interpretation" or a "new theory" - but the user just doesn't know of any sources. This seems to be extremely widespread - the user asserts what he believes to be common knowledge by experts in the field. Obviously I'm not referring to Norse mythology or subatomic physics, but more mundane topics like extreme sports, computer games, popular music etc. The clamp down on original research seems to limit those contributions due to lack of sources, but I'm just not sure they're in themselves particularly harmful. Stevage 09:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This is particularly harmful in the popular music articles, leading to conflicts over unsourced aesthetic judgments, lyric interpretations, characterizations, and commentary, etc. Both NPOV and NOR policies should prevent such text from being included, but that's not, in practice, the case. Often these unsourced comments are presented as factual, even though different views are easy to find. Monicasdude 14:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Facts cannot be copyrighted, and a simple table of facts, especially if you don't use the same layout, is probably not a copyright violation, but IANAL. On the other hand, we routinely generate simple mathematical results, tables, graphs, or proofs for articles — just explain how you did it on the talk page or image page so it can be verified. There's really no avoiding some amount of originality in writing articles, as long as that originality is limited to externally supportable discussion and interpretation of the topic, not the invention of new ideas. In many cases I find it difficult to judge. Deco 01:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Two Questions

I have two questions that need answering, even though they've probably already been asked.

1. Accumulated Cyclone Energy is a measure of the activity of a hurricane season. It is found by taking a tropical storm or hurricane's windspeed every six hours, squaring it, and adding the results. The total is then divided by 10^4, which gives the ACE. Is taking published and official windspeeds, such as from the NHC or Unisys, and doing the ACE math oneself Original Research? I'd like to point out that this has been done on an ongoing basis for part of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and no one there has raised concerns.
2. Second, I am shortly going to add information to a song article. The song the article is about has profanity in it. Is counting the number of times that expletive appears in a song OR?

Thanks for answering. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Just my opinion: For Q2 - I think counting the number of profane words passes the apple-pie test (i.e., doesn't violate NOR) but I would raise NPOV concerns since what people consider profane or an explitive may be subjective. For Q1 - I think it is important to provide a source for the formula itself, and sources for the data. Actually making the calculations yourself is I think right on the border. Question: hasn't someone else already done the calculations? Is there no such source you could cite? That would be preferable. If there IS no such citable source, my advice is: if there is no controversy, no objection, then just do it. But if anyone raises objections, talk it through and see if you can reach a consensus. But this is just my opinion. It wouldn't surprise me if others tell you not to do it. Let's see. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The formula for ACE is given here as "The Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) Index is calculated by summing the squares of the estimated 6-hourly maximum sustained wind speed in knots for all periods in which the tropical cyclone is a tropical storm or greater intensity" and here as "It is calculated by squaring the maximum sustained surface wind in the system every six hours and summing it up for the season. It is expressed in 10 to the 4th kt**2". Based on this, I'd say that the formula is certainly published by a reputable source (The NHC/NOAA). The windspeed data can be found at Unisys or the NHC Archives (click on a season and then a storm to get the actual windspeeds). The windspeed is also published by reputable sources.

If the formula is published, and the figures are published, then the straightforward aplication of the formular to the figures is verifiable, isn't it? And it's certainly not a crackpot theory, controversial, or a novel interpretation. Well, that's as much as I can help you. :) Stevage 14:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad Policy

This is a bad policy and should be withdrawn. It's just too semantically vague, which inevitably leads to time-wasting debates when somebody invokes the policy. It was plainly instituted to keep out long, developed personal theories or points-of-view, but it is now being used to attack even simple observations of phenomena and written matter-- the sort of basic observation which simply cannot be avoided in the construction of sentences. I vote for a vote to delete. JDG 09:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• You conclude that "It was plainly instituted to keep out long, developed personal theories or points-of-view if not" by reading the article, and I agree with that conclusion as (likely) most editors. Thus I don't think that the problem is as big as that, and I would be very much surprised if the phrasing can't be improved here and there, to make such misinderstandings rare events. Do you have an example? Harald88 11:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Far from being a bad policy, JDG, it's the one thing that stands between Wikipedia and a deluge of nonsense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• This policy addresses several things, not just one. It not only addresses idiosyncratic theories or beliefs but also addresses primary research. The recording of "simple observations of phenomena" is the creation of primary source material. Wikipedia is not the place for such records, any more than it would have been the place to record Tycho Brahe's observations. Wikipedia is not a means for performing collaborative research. Primary source material must be checked, peer reviewed, revised, and published elsewhere. Uncle G 15:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

At most, I can see the value of adding a sentence or two to the apple-pie test, to address JDG's concern. But this is one of the oldest Wikipedia policies; it is certainly much clearer than the original formulation. Moreover, as the number of contributors grows and grows this policy becomes more important than ever. I agree fully with SlimVirgin's comment above. Look, if any conflict over whether someone is violating NOR or not ever makes it to the ArbCom – hey, let's say ever makes it to formal mediation – then I will take JDG's concern more seriously. I have yet to see a clear case where this policy was uncondintionally preventing an article from becoming better. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Can it be made clearer that there are no exceptions?

On this page: Talk:"Lucas_Bashing"_phenomenon#Fundamental_challenge_to_sourcing this guy is claiming that "no original research" should not or does not apply to fan culture. Is it possible to make explicit mention that fan topics like Harry Potter and Star Wars articles are not exempt from the sources requirement? These articles have the most problem with original research IMO. Borisblue 19:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the discussion, but you are correct. Wikipedia is not a place for fan fiction or loony theories of how things work in fictional universes. Sometimes particular fan theories may be notable due to wide exposure, and then we can discuss them; here are some examples off the top of my head:

• Theoretical chronologies of the Legend of Zelda series as published by multiple longstanding Zelda websites
• A fan theory of the third line of the lyrics of "Hey Sandy" published on multiple websites
• Fan theories about the mechanics of the Wheel of Time universe as published in the widely-known and well-researched Wheel of Time FAQ

You get the idea. But, we certainly don't invent our own. Deco 01:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Priveleged experts

The ArbCom has yet to finalize the new "priveleged expert" exemption [2] based upon Nobs01 and others case, yet I note the change has already been made official here with little discussion [3]. nobs 20:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of the material deleted by User:SlimVirgin was redundant, some was not. I have taken the liberty of restoring the non-redundant material, merging it into the appropriate section. --HK 22:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem articles

Is there a Category or some list to include articles that (suspected to) violate WP:NOR? I just came across NPR and Commercialization which appears to be someone's school paper copied into Wikipedia. I don't think it necessarily needs to be deleted (it has references), but at least needs major cleanup, needs to adhere to WP:NPOV, and moved to conform to the Manual of style. ---Aude 05:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Vehement opposition to this policy, and proposed remedy

So... all information in this encyclopaedia either has to be of an undeniable basis (e.g. humans are bipeds) or backed up by a reputable publication?? I hope Wikimedia would establish a "Wiki-infoshare: The (Truly) Public Encyclopedia" or something like that soon -.- (The last sentence is meant to be slightly sarcastic, by the way.)

Problem One

Let me point out a problem with this policy: The policy page recommends that so-called original researchers publish their findings in a journal or reputable publication first, and then post them on Wikipedia. The problem is... there are lots of everyday observations that would simply be too trifling for release in such a journal but would be beneficial to readers of Wikipedia who might simply not be familiar with a particular environment or point of view. (It is also my opinion that NOTHING is too trivial or trifling to be included on Wikipedia, a limitless resource.)

For example, if I were to post a line stating that the majority of Hongkongers are ill-mannered by western standards, this would almost certainly be deleted because I'd be accused of (1) having a non-neutral point of view and (2) not backing myself up with a reputable authority on the matter. The fact is that everyone who comes or returns to Hong Kong after some time in the western world would undeniably concur with my observation, which would morever be rather useful to those who intend to visit our city.

What's your take on this?

Problem Two

I read above that even eyewitness testimony and accounts are prohibited. What sort of rule is this???

Even the user who stated this prohibition above admitted: "I say this with some sorrow, because clearly there are some topics where you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that some newspaper article, or publicists' statement, is wrong."

I would like a lengthy explanation and justification of this counter-progressive policy, especially in light of the proposed remedy I shall detail below.

Proposed remedy

The loudest argument in favour of the existing policy would perhaps be: "It's better to be safe than sorry." I agree, but their are clear alternatives to an unreasonable all-out ban on original research and eyewitness accounts.

1. Remedy for original research: Original research should be permitted if the author puts in a note stating that certain information might be observation-based or limited to a particular geographic area. This note could take on a standardised form similar to the spoiler warnings commonly seen in Wikipedia articles on works of fiction. Example (based on the spoiler warning):

---

Original research: Observation-based deduction, regional inference, or unpublished research follows.

---

2. Remedy for eyewitness accounts: As above, eyewitness accounts should be permitted if the author puts in a note making clear that the information is considered undeniable by the author but based on an individual's own observation and not obtained from a publication. Example:

---

Eyewitness account: Information based on an individual's own undeniable observation follows.

---

I would appreciate your comments on my viewpoints and proposed remedies to the problem. Please do not respond, as some of you have above, with blanket statements concerning "what is prohibited" and "what is allowed". I'd like to have a discussion contesting the rules themselves and not what is allowed under the current rules.

Thanks in advance for your input! --Lapin rossignol 10:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The policy does not say that content must be on an "undeniable" basis; it has to be on a verifiable basis. This is very important to maintain the quality of Wikipedia. We are first and formost an encyclopedia, and NOT an anarchic community of people posting their own views. Any anarchic elements of Wikipedia are means to the end of developing a verifiable encyclopedia. This is a non-compromisable element o f the project. If you do not like it, there are other on-line venues such as Everything2 that you may like more. In any event, other encyclopedias have verious ways of ensuring quality, such as peer-review for articles, and articles written by experts. We do not want to avail ourselves of these ways, so we need other means for ensuring quality. Our policies, such as this one, are essential to that end. You write "The problem is... there are lots of everyday observations that would simply be too trifling for release in such a journal but would be beneficial to readers of Wikipedia who might simply not be familiar with a particular environment or point of view." I believe that the policy already covers this, with the "apple pie" and "current events" exclusions. If y "trifling" you means something that is not covered by either of these exclusions, then I suggest it is not so trifling as you think. As to eyewitness accounts, again, the issue is verifiability. If you are the only person who was an eyewitness, I see no reason at all to include it in an encyclopedia. But if there are, or can be, many eyewitnesses then you are describing a verifiable event and there is almost certainly secondary sources that an editor can cite concerning this event, so that the edits would comply with our policy. Let's say that using my telescope I saw a star go nova. If I am the only person who saw it, it is unverifiable and cannot go into the encyclopedia. If many have seen it, you can be sure tht it will be reported in a newspaper or scientific journal, or both - and those are verifiable, citable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation of this policy, Slrubenstein. I stand rectified on my usage of the word "undeniable" and my "single eyewitness" stance. Of course, I still stand behind the remainder of my viewpoint.

Incidentally, you failed to address the remedies I suggested for this problem. These remedies are an integral part of my viewpoint, and without them in force, my argument would be greatly weakened due to its liberal attitude that may possibly result in "a deluge of unverified claims". With my remedies in force, however, readers could easily distinguish between established facts and such claims. Therefore, it would be greatly appreciated if you and other Wikipedians here could please consider the remedies I suggested for the problem.

(P.S. Please do not try to turn me away from Wikipedia by suggesting other online venues. Let's have a discussion here. Contrary to what you may think, Wikipedia policy does allow discussion over its core elements. Certainly, they may be uncompromisable in practice at this moment, but they may be pondered over in search of a better solution, no? ^.^) --Lapin rossignol 02:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I retract my stance on permitting eyewitness testimony for current events. I have read the explanations for the NOR policy in more detail, and I now agree that articles on current events should abide by the existing policy because in any case, current events are most likely to be covered by publications and most likely to be pounced on by unverified claimants.

However, I still would like to see a softening of the existing policy towards observation-based conclusions.

Thus, please consider the remedy I proposed for such observation-based conclusions: Instead of an all-out ban on them, a warning like the following should suffice...

---

Observation warning: Observation-based deduction or regional influence follows.

---

This warning may not be used for current events or specialist topics (i.e. discipline-specific matters requiring professional research). I now believe that the existing NOR policy is best for such topics. So, with my softened stance on the matter, I would appreciate your further feedback on my suggested policy improvement. Thanks a bunch! --Lapin rossignol 03:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see my apology on your talk page. As for your remedy: first, I do not see it as a remedy because I do not share your belief that there is a problem. Second, I see your "remedy" as nothing more than a statement that the associated content is in violation of our policies (I am being blunt but do not mean to offend). So i oppose your remedy on two grounds: it does not solve any problem, and only opens the doors for some of the problems this policy is meant to prevent. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to kibitz, I don't see the need for a remedy either. There are more sources than people realize - if residents of Hong Kong are observably ill-mannered, there are likely multiple newspaper articles, columns, statements by officials worried about effects on tourists (perhaps even a "politeness campaign" at some point), sociological studies, travel book warnings, mentions in published travel accounts, and on and on. There's simply no need to rely on personal impressions when the nearby university library has a million or more books in it, most of which haven't yet been used as sources for WP content. Stan 22:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

To Slruberstein: Aww, there's no need to apologise, but thanks a lot for that ^.^ I feel guilty whenever someone apologises to me, haha, so you've got me at a soft spot :-p. Hmm, I'll reply in full later, when I've read the policy page in more detail and thought over things (and their consequences) a bit, but here's what I can say now in response to the above:

"Nothing more than a statement that the associated content is in violation of our policies." ... Well, I'm proposing a modification of these very policies, so whether my suggestion contravenes them is really a moot point, no? (And don't worry, I'd do no such thing as violate a policy. I'll debate policies, challenge policies through my words, yes, but until policies are changed- and they might never be- I won't do anything that the existing rules prohibit.)

To Stan: And thanks for "kibitzing", or in my words, contributing to the discussion :-p. Haha, my example on behaviour in Hong Kong was a rotten one. Anyway, I remember my A-level days last year... spending two whole days in the university library to find sources for my final research paper, whew! >.< Quite a lot of effort, but certainly necessary for academic papers and more specialised/technical Wikipedia articles. Considering the sort of trivial "observation-based conclusions" I have in mind, however, it's really a very, very roundabout way to get at stuff when the evidence is right in front of your eyes, I must say!! Heh :-) --Lapin rossignol 02:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I have used statements similar to yours when citing some external references containing some questionable material, since I can't remove that material. However, if you tell someone, "What I'm about to tell you has no widely-accepted evidence to back it up", then the effect is to degrade the reader's trust in that article. I would only add this type of material if I were refuting a common myth or rumour (e.g., "Many people believe based on fictional dramatizations and anecdotal evidence that clowns are evil, but in fact statistics show that only about 1% of murder cases involve clowns.").

The essence of No original research is not so much the elimination of any iota of information invented by contributors, but the elimination of factual claims that are not widely accepted because they have never been examined critically by a reputable source. These claims are often very difficult to falsify (see falsifiability), so it's not good enough to say we should remove inaccurate material. The policy's primary purpose is to combat cranks who wish to publish their bizarre personal theories on Wikipedia, which it does quite well. Note that these cranks often cite many sources, but what makes it possible to delete their nonsense is that their sources are either unreputable or do not make the same claims as the crank; the crank is forced to take a logical leap from reputable information to their personal unsupported theories, and this is what we call original research.

In the end, if you're in a situation where you really need to invent something for the purpose of adequate presentation, go ahead and do it (WP:IAR), but be prepared to defend your decision as reasonable and as least give a detailed explanation on the talk page. Deco 02:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, thanks a lot, Deco ^.^ You're quite right, and have put this policy into much more perspective for me. You've really shown me the "spirit of the rule" as opposed to its letter. Anyway, taking your views on the "essense" of this policy into account, I suppose that trivial observations of the type I mentioned would most likely be ignored by editors? For instance, if I were to add a line- "many drivers in Hong Kong engage in illegal overtaking on the left and are particularly adept at cutting into small spaces between vehicles"- then perhaps this line would either be considered to fit the apple pie rule or pass under the editors' noses because it is simply too incidental to attract attention? --Lapin rossignol 02:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, for that particular statement, if it were me, I would probably remove it because it's so difficult to verify. Even if a person lived there and experienced this sort of thing everyday, they still only encounter a tiny fraction of the traffic in the country, and an illogical overgeneralization is required to justify it. On the other hand, you could report police records on traffic accidents in Hong Kong and compare the accident rates to those in other nations, and this, although it still smacks of original research, is at least a reasonably verifiable claim that required little synthesis to reach the sought conclusion. Deco 02:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, but thanks anyway. The latter requirement you provided is coincidentally possible to obtain, because I just encountered a news report yesterday with the relevant statistics from police (which I could compare with international statistics from the Economist's World in Figures publication). But still... I was entertaining a more favourable view towards the NOR policy, and I'm reminded of its rigour once more -.- Lapin rossignol 04:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Lapin rossignol, I would bet that most "observation-based conclusions" (and to be honest, you mean "personal observation-based conclusions," since one of the tests of a scientific theory is its ability to suggest possible "observations" from which one would draw conclusions; the observations must thmselves be verifiable (or reproducible) and the conclusions falsifiable. My point is, most conclusions expressed in any encyclopedia article are "observation-based," just notin the way you mean)you would make could actually be found in verifiable sources. If so, why not cite those sources? Doing so could only help readers, and make the article stronger. And if there are no verifiable citable sources for your "observations," with all due respect I suggest you think long and hard about why that is the case. The reasons why may very well be the same reasons for not including them in this encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand completely, Slruberstein. Of course sources should be cited whenever possible and they are certainly available, but won't you agree that trying to find sources in university libraries and whatnot is terribly a lot of effort for observations that are just plain obvious and really... smack you in the face? This is the "logic of laziness", pretty much :-p.

"The reasons why may very well be the same reasons for not including them in this encyclopedia." The very first reason I thought of, quite a long time ago, was triviality: some things might just be too trifling for any respectable academic to waste his time on or any respectable publication to waste its pages on. But as we know, Wikipedia is a vast, unlimited resource, constrained by neither time nor space nor contributors. Plus, if you visit my Wikipedia user page, you can see that I'm a proponent of "comprehensive inclusionism", i.e. Wikipedia as a place for everything anyone might ever want to know. --Lapin rossignol 03:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, you know what, I'm going to drop this cause as soon as I get somewhere with my campaign to eliminate the criterion of notability. Almost all of Wikipedia is against me on my NOR reform proposal anyway, so my arguments here serve no purpose. In the debate over notability, at least, Wikipedia is pretty much divided 50-50. And plus, I take a personal interest in that issue but not in NOR, so I'll let all of you here win on this one and breathe a sigh of relief. Thanks to you all for debating with me and contributing to this discussion whilst my fire was still burning ^.^ Lapin rossignol 10:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Lapin, this ain't over. It's just that the time isn't ripe to bring down this wrongheaded policy. Stay tuned. JDG 05:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Notability has been an issue since Day 1. Even years ago users were labelling themselves as "inclusionists" and "deletionists" - it's the oldest and most enduring conflict of our community, and it's really not going away. I consider it a healthy conflict personally. But I don't think I've ever met anyone who seriously wanted to keep every article they ever saw, we just have different standards. Yes, I'm off topic. Deco 08:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Hi Uncle G, I reverted that edit again because you're introducing footnotes. It's not the extra quotes I'm concerned about, just the deletion of the embedded links. When I have time, if it's all right with, I'll put back the extra quotes but give the sources as links. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

An interesting case

A very interesting discussion is taking place at Media circus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stbalbach (talk · contribs) has claimed that the inclusion of events in a "list of media circuses" that's in the article can only be done by citing a source that has referred to them as a "media circus", or else it's a contributor's opinion, and original research. I'm advocating that this is not the case, since "media circus" is not a standardized, nor an official-on-any-level term, but rather a general characteristic of an event receiving more media attention than would be reasonable, or necessary. I'm particularly enphasizing the fact that "media circus" is a term in English, but it's general parameters (too much media coverage) can happen anywhere, but it would be next to impossible to find a source saying "this is a media circus" about an event taking place outside of the English-speaking world. Well, best if anyone interested would read the discussion going on here. Then all the points of view being expressed can be read and reflected upon. Regards, Redux^talk 22:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why this would be an interesting case. Calling something a "media circus" is clearly making a judgement about media response. If something is simply our own opinion, it doesn't belong in the article. Jkelly 01:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Calling something a "media circus" in the absence of anyone else calling it that is an example of the editor expressing his own opinion, and therefore original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the complexity of it. A "media circus" is not an adjective such as "beautiful", or "interesting". If we were going to say, on any article, that something is "beautiful" or "interesting", we must cite an external source that has referred to the object in question as "beautiful" or "interesting". The meaning of a "media circus", as we define it on our article, is a situation (any situation) where the media coverage is out of proportion to the event itself. Thus, saying that a situation was a "media circus", as I see it, is not stating a subjective opinion about something, but rather observing a practical, empirical reality. And the threshhold for what's too much media coverage? That comes from reasonableness. As this very project page affirms (and I quoted this over there too), In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge (...) a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources. The primary source being the record of news programs spending half an edition, over weeks, talking about a celebrity feud, or the images of hordes of reporters camped on the lawn of a family whose child is accused of a crime. An analogy: if I see a plane crash, and I say "that plane crashed", that cannot possibly be original reseach. It's not the same as saying "that plane crashed with a pattern that indicates that the accident was caused by an engine malfunction", which is an extrapolation on the empirical event, and thus I would need a reputable, external source that has made reference to this in order to state it in one of our articles. Redux 03:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And the threshhold for what's too much media coverage? That comes from reasonableness. Sorry, but "reasonable" is a subjective judgement. Calling something a "media circus" is a disparaging characterization and should only be used if attributed to a source. Otherwise it is projecting an opinion onto the description. older≠wiser 03:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the section I quoted should be removed from our policy then? Right now, it says "reasonable adult", but you're saying it doesn't count because "reasonable" is subjective. Well, it would appear that our policy allows for a certain subjectiveness.
And the article does not say that a "media circus" is peremptorily used as a pejorative remark on something. Rather, it opens saying that it is the situation of excessive media coverage of a subject and, as I understood it, that this affirmation can be used in a disparaging context. It would appear that the context in which it is said is subjective, but the concept of something being a "media circus" is not (within what's reasonable). The events listed in the article are those where there was disproportional media coverage, regardless of whether that might have been used as a pejorative adjective attached to the event or its media coverage. I had worded it more clearly (I hope), but it got reverted back to the previous version when the tags were reinserted. Regards, Redux 03:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the section I quoted should be removed from our policy then? No, just that I think it applies primarily to trivially factual descriptions. For example, you wouldn't reasonably expect much clamor to require a citation for the statement that Texas is in the USA. I'd say that labeling something as a "media circus" fails the second clause of the relevant portion of the OR (which you elided when you cited it above): "and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims". That is, labelling something as a media circus requires making both an analytic and evaluative claim. older≠wiser 04:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The reasonable-adult test is to cover edits like "The sun rose in the east this morning." Calling something a media circus is to comment on the appropriateness of the coverage, which is a subjective judgement related to how much coverage the event was worth, and there are no facts about issues like that, only opinions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That's something key here: the definition in our article about the term "media circus". Everything else is constructed/inserted having that logic as a starting point. The article explains it as something that can be objectively observed by the reasonable man (hence my quote). Curiously enough (from my perspective), both Stbalbach (on the article's talk page) and you guys here are addressing the term "media circus" as something subjective, that would require a subjective and personal analysis to be verified. But that's not what I'm drawing from the article at all. So I'm wondering if the problem isn't that the article is unclear, or maybe just plain wrong. Because I'd not be having this discussion if I understood that calling a situation a "media circus" were the same, from an analytical point of view, as calling it "tricky", "unbelievable" or what have you. Assuming that the article is right, however, SlimVirgin just brought up something I had said over at the article's talk page: it' just opinions. But it's just opinions all along. There's no official definition of a "media circus", in the sense that there are no standardized parameters to determine one. In that sense, the bulk of the article would also be reflecting a user(s)'s opinion (those users who wrote it, of course), or, more accuratelly, their understanding of this expression, "media circus". That's quite interesting, since the article says The term is used in a number of ways, including as a pejorative description by critics of the media and/or partisan sides in the event (...). But everybody seems to understand it as peremptorily pejorative, and thus that calling something a "media circus" signifies a subjective analysis (which, without an external source, would be original research).
Is the article wrong then, is that it? But if it's not, then I don't see it as a subjective opinion at all (that would be if we were implying any context associated with the term), but rather as a term that defines an objective situation, and one that can be easily verified by the "reasonable adult". Redux 11:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article itself in the first line says it is a "metaphorical term" -- this is figurative language which is inherently impossible to define objectively. You can describe the general sense of the term and give examples of how it has been used (which would involved citing who used the term in what context). But simply identifying a list of incidents as examples of a media circus without attribution is applying editorial judgement (i.e., something is a media circus in someone's opinion--not by some universally recognized standard). older≠wiser 15:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It's metaphorical because it applies the word "circus", but it would not negate it having a clear, objectively observable (by the reasonable...you know) characteristic(s). I'm still wondering if the article is wrong in its definition of the term. Bottom line is: is that a dead-on pejorative term, as users have been saying in this discussion (and the one at the article's talk page), or is the article accurate? As I've said, according to what I've understood from the article, it's not editorial judgement to say that a situation that took place somewhere fits that description, as measured by a reasonable standard. You are absolutely right if the context is automatically attached to the expression (thus saying that something is a "media circus" would forcibly imply our judging the event as being bad, good, exaggerated or whatever). If that's the case, if that's how the expression is perceived by the average individual (who would read the article and thus assume we are judging those events as having had a "bad media coverage"), then there's nothing left to discuss and I'll remove the unsourced references myself. Redux 16:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Redux, I think you are missing everyone's point (but Older/Wider and Slim Virgin, correct me if I am mistaken). What constitutes a "media circus" is not something everyone agrees on. Moreover, the phrase is used rhetorically in an inherantly POV way. What I mean is, when people call something a jmedia circus they are not just naming something in a matter-of-fact-way (like, "Oh, that is an oak tree"). They are calling it a "media circus" in order to cast aspersions on either the object of media attention, or the media themselves. It is simply not up to Wikipedia editors to make this judgement. But Redux, let me go one step further. Let us say just for the sake of argument that you are right that all reasonable people agree as to what a media circus is, and can tell when something is a media circus. If this were the case, shouldn't it be very easy for you to find a verifiable source? And if you can easily find a verifiable source, why insist on inserting your own opinion when you can provide the source and in the process comply with three policies? To summarize: if you cannot find verifiable sources identifying something as a media circus, then I would consider that evidence that you are wrong about the "reasonable person" claim. And if you can find verifiable sources, you should use them. You suggest that this is a phrase used in the English-speaking world. If you want to add to the list of "media circuses" something that happened in Ukraine or Japan, it is worth researching whether they have in their own language an equivalent for "media circus." And if they don't, all the more reason to find a verifiable source, because you would be making an intrinsically POV claim, namely, that English speakers view it as a media circus. Well, if that claim is accurate, you will be able to find verifiable sources. And if you can't, the claim is not accurate. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I had not missed that point. But it seemed to be clashing with what our article makes it out to be, a "media circus". I wanted to be 100% clear on this (it's a POV expression, used to criticize the media coverage peremptorily), since I'll reword the article to reflect that, as well as delete all the unsourced entries on the list. I was guiding myself by what the article was stating, since I didn't know any better, and the opening section had not been revised in a long time. Of course, if the article (as it stands right now), had been right, I'd still say it was not original research. Thanks, everybody. But just to be on the safe side, I'll be waiting a 24 to 48-hour period before cleaning up the article, this way, anyone wishing to dispute further the meaning of the term "media circus" should have time to post on the article's talk page. Regards, Redux 22:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Another calculator example

Can someone please answer this hypothetical question: Suppose a scientist publishes a simple algebraic expression, and claims that when evaluated, the expression equals 15.89. I spend a few minutes with a calculator and I verify that it does indeed equal 15.89. Have I done "original research"? I believe the answer is no; instead, I have come up with some "verifiable information" (because anyone else with a calculator can also verify that the expression equals 15.89). Thanks, Anonymous, 20:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

To what end are you verifying the information with your calculator? If it is in order to include a "and the scientist is right." after the WP:CITE, I would be suspicious of this. Jkelly 21:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really seeing the issue. The scientist published some correct information (emphasis on 'published'), so you cite it. Whether you were able to reproduce his experiment and get the same answer is up to consenting adults behind closed doors. Of course, if your example was, he came up with the algebraic expression but *didn't* give the answer, and you decide to add the 15.89 anyway, that's a bit of a grey area. Stevage 22:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies, Jkelly and Stevage. Here's the issue: said scientist's theory contains an algebraic expression that makes a quantitative prediction. Said scientist claims that when the expression is evaluated, you get a value that closely matches experimental results published by CODATA. I used a calculator to verify that the expression did indeed evaluate to a value that closely matches the CODATA experimental results, as claimed. So I stated in the article that the prediction closely matches the experimental results, but maintained a NPOV by explicitly stating that the scientific community has not yet reached a consensus about whether this close match is due to a correct theoretical basis, or "luck." Another user deleted what I wrote, saying that the scientist's claim hasn't "been verified in any published source," and that my verification of the claim -- which, I must stress, could be done by any middle-school algebra student -- constitutes "original research." I say it's not "original research"; to the contrary, it's "verifiable information." Who is correct? Thanks, Anonymous, 02:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

They're right, you're wrong :) The scientist's *claim* is verifiable - you can find his claim in this publication. His facts are not, and they're not supposed to be. The OR policy is never about whether facts themselves can be proven - in fact the policy explicitly discaims that ("regardless of whether you can prove it or not"). Just publish the claims. Trying to prove thim *is* OR. Stevage 22:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Having just read your bit about middle school algebra - it may be ok to include the proof itself in the page if it's short enough. It's very unlikely to be relevant though. The scientist has made a claim...it's really up to other scientists to refute it or not. Stevage 22:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty well explained in the policy's original references:

Jimbo stressed [4] that

The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is _true_ or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that.

Obviously, there is no verification problem on matters that anyone with high school can verify in a minute. Harald88 23:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again Stevage. Let's see if I understand. If Jacques Chirac predicts on Jan. 11 that "the sun will rise tomorrow," I guess it would be against Wikipedia policy to later write, "the sun rose on Jan. 12, as Chirac predicted." Right? Anonymous 22:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, verifiable calculations and proofs may be original research, but sometimes it's necessary to fabricate this kind of thing to facilitate presentation or to avoid copyright issues. Just act in good faith, don't make any objectionable claims that are either questionable in accuracy or contradict accepted scientific knowledge, add extended justification details to the talk page where necessary, and you're not likely to get OR cited on you.

In this case, though, there's no need to prove that the scientist's claims are accurate, as long as they are verifiable. If there's reason to doubt the scientist themselves, other verifiable information to this effect could be added, but let the reader judge who to believe. Deco 00:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, what makes something verifiable is that it can be traced to a published source, in this case. That an editor comes up with the same result using the same formula is in my opinion equivalent to saying that the editor agrees with the source. But it just does not mater whether we agree or not, with our sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Flood of peer-reviewed "facts"

I am increasingly worried by the fact that some people here seem to think that what passes academic peer review must be true. There are actually examples where people have generated random sentences using a computer program and got their paper accepted in a peer-reviewed journal! Much of what is published in peer-reviewed journals is controversial, otherwise nobody would be interested in publishing it in the first place!

A Draconian measure would be having a "moving wall" which meant that articles younger than x years (maybe 3 or 5?) could only be discussed by giving an alternative view to the "novelty" element of the publication (since any hypothesis has flaws - theories can be useful, not true - this should not be difficult to do, and in most cases, the peer-reviewed literature will only have the ). Otherwise wikipedia will itself be seriously prone to citation bias, where only extraordinary new things will get written about, much of which will prove wrong a few years down the line. There is at least some virtue in conservatism! There are a few editors here who have a habit of digging out off-the-wall papers and editing their contents into articles straight away.

The policy discusses what reputable publications are, but a peer-reviewed journal would have to be very young (and hence not yet reputable) to have never published a false claim!

I don't particularly favour the idea of a moving wall, and will write again when I come up with something better, but there should be a guideline on managing this problem. If anyone else has ideas, I'd be more than glad to hear them! - Samsara 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that most articles are controversial, to the contrary they are often boringly conservative. And IMO you see a problem that doesn't exist: Wikipedia is not to assert that what is published is a fact. Instead it mentions that according so-and-so, such and such.

Moreover, from my citation of Jimbo a little up on this page, WP:OR is obviously not meant to forbid editors from checking what they are willing to verify, but simply to avoid the burden and responsibility of obliged additional peer review. Harald88 19:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly fine to write about anything published, however recent. If there is reason to believe it is inaccurate, and this has come up in notable, verifiable documents, then by all means discuss them as well to provide a balanced explanation. A good article discusses not just verifiable claims but the way in which the world views those claims. Deco 07:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

First, we need to be steadfast in our claim that our articles are concerned with what is verifiable, not with what is true. Second, contextual information about sources (included how long ago/how recently it was published), when relevant, should always be mentioned. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald88, your model works well for articles that are being watched by many people. Publicising the conclusion of a published article in a less visited wikipedia item, without checking for alternate points of view (in the published literature), can have serious consequences, however. Remember that all you need for your article to pass as "peer-reviewed" is to get two favourable reviews. Maybe those reviewers just happen to agree with you, but the rest of the community may have serious reservations. On wikipedia, we would be stuck with the minority view until someone knowledgeable enough to raise an eyebrow comes along, and (hopefully) gives a more balanced discussion.

What you may also be unaware of is that when you submit articles to peer-reviewed journals, you are often asked to give a list of suggested referees, usually a number between five and eight. You can also ask for particular people to be excluded as referees. So in reality, you exclude those who you know are hostile to your work and put all your friends down on the "suggested" list. We have to realise that this has consequences for wikipedia! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

talk, I did not propose such a model as you describe; in any case, I can't remember doing so, and I can't find such a proposal by me.

About your point: I agree that whatever conclusion we cite, ideally we check if a counter conclusion exists in literature, to avoid sticking with a lone-sided view. However, your model is unrealistic: I doubt that most Wikipedia editors have the time and resources to do a full literature study before adding an interesting reference. Jimbo certainly did not require that, as it would severely slow down and possibly forever hinder the evolution of articles.Harald88 19:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal interviews that were published

I know that personal interviews are considered original research, and thus are not allowed as a source. But what about personal interviews that were done some time ago for the purpose of publication elsewhere? Can I cite my own published work?

Specifically, several years ago, I worked as a newspaper reporter. During that time, I did interviews with a few people whom I believe should have articles in Wikipedia. Since that information was published (albeit under my byline), can it be used? (The subjects never disputed the accuracy of what I wrote.)

-- Michael J 01:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this spelled out somewhere? We will, in fact, often say to people that if they want their research used as a source on Wikipedia that they need to get it published first. It seems that you have done precisely that. I would be especially careful in this situation about WP:RS and use painstakingly careful phrasing to make sure it is absolutely clear who said what and in what context, but, unless I am mistaken, quoting those interviews should be fine. Jkelly 01:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds legitimate to me, but be prepared to face accusations of self-promotion. You may wish to leave additions on the talk page for other interested contributors to add, as I sometimes do with, for example, links to my website. Deco 07:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Your interviews aren't original research. They are source-based research. Like Jkelly says, be very clear about stating who said what from the interviews. Make sure any new or novel theories, interpretations, definitions, etc are from the source (and stated so) and not from you. If you aren't the one making new claims, then you aren't the one doing original research. Make sure the source material, such as notes or recordings of the interview, would be available for verifiability. SchmuckyTheCat 08:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I only partially agree. The interview can only be used as a source for the content that was published. Some illicit content that appears in the interview might have been carefully removed in the final publication. Remember that one of the purpose of the requirement for a reputable source is to remove stories that might be innacurate or unfair. This is a tricky situation. I would say that if there is a consensus that the significant content of the interview is also supported in the final publication, then go ahead. Better, if your understanding is that the essential content of the interview is also supported in the final publication, then go ahead without asking for a consensus, but be ready for an opposition, in which case, if you fail to get the consensus, you will have to remove it. --Lumiere 19:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the purpose of this rule to promote propaganda?

"One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher."

The basic implication here is that Wikipedia will only promote propaganda. The facts regarding law in the United States are very easy to verify. But the above rules have a very serious stultifying effect on criticisms of the legal system in the USA.

There is no doubt that a large cross section of the American public believe that lawyers and the legal system have a bad smell. The problem is that the pro-lawyer arguments are published in force by reputable authority and publishers. This is because the status quo has a very serious interest in maintaining itself.

The arguments against the legal system are much more difficult. This is proven by the fact that at present there is no effective criticism of the legal system and the lawyers in Wikipedia. The apologists for the lawyers are relying on this particular rule here to squelch all criticism.

It seems to me that it is far better to have a poorly written and poorly researched criticism of lawyers and the USA legal system than no criticism at all. A badly written criticism of the lawyers and the legal system will only get better with age. No criticism will only remain that which it is, propaganda. LegalEagle1798 00:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I totally disagree with the above logic. To the contrary, such criticism must be very well supported before it can be included in WP. I think that the above person would like to use WP as a way to present what could not find its way in a reputable publication! This is the opposite of what WP and any encyclopedia should be. The cruisade of the above person against the lawers might be perfectly legitimate and I guess that there must exist facts about this issue that have find their way in reputable publications, and these are perfectly fine in WP, but WP is not the place for what could be unfair stories. WP is not equipped to separate valid and useful criticisms from what would simply be defamatory statements against a legitimate organization. --Lumiere 19:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The rule is called "No original research". It prohibits certain content that is not widely known - it does not promote anything. Deco 19:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly -- it's imposed for practical reasons. It's true that propaganda will be over-represented on Wikipedia, but I don't see how that can be helped in practice: we need to prevent it being abused as soapbox.

OTOH, Wikipedia imposes giving fair space to minority views, and that is already better than can be said of many other publications. Harald88 22:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Since making my initial post, I have read the project page more carefully and the basic problem here is that all of Wikipedia is original research. If you remove original research, you have WikiArchive. Once primary sources and secondary sources or whatever are edited or paraphrased that turns them into original research. There is no turning to the right or the left of this. The issue is not whether an article is original research, for they all are, but only as to degree.

All the articles in Wikipedia are original research but most of them are accepted as properly written according to the rules for practical reasons. If this rule were to be strictly followed Wikipedia would not be possible. Certainly, for example the mathematics articles in Wikipedia are original research. There are uncounted numbers of mathematics sources, and selecting the ideas and form that goes into Wikepedia is original research. If this is true for mathematics, it must be true for every subject and it is true for every subject.

In articles that involve propaganda this rule takes on an insidious character. For example in articles that involve the law and the lawyers this rule enforces censorship and denies criticism. If propaganda is allowed in Wikipedia this makes Wikipedia a tool for propaganda. The apologists for propaganda can always censor all criticism by simply labeling it original research. This will always have effect since everything on Wikipedia is original research, but almost by definition propaganda will be original research to a lesser degree than any criticism of propaganda. This must be true because the status quo will have more legitimacy than anyone or any thing critical of it. LegalEagle1798 06:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that you take a very strong and incorrect interpretation of the No original research policy to conclude that most of WP is original research, including all mathematical articles. The solution is to take a natural the correct interpretation, which is already understood by many: a content does not have to be supported word for word before it can be accepted for inclusion in a WP article; it is fine that it appears in a different form in the sources. If the criticisms that you mention are supported by reputable sources in this way, then fine, otherwise they are not acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. -Lumière 08:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The following is a paste and cut from my talk page -Lumière 22:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC):

You basically conceded that the issue is one of degree. LegalEagle1798

So if an article has lower degree of original research it is ok, but a high degree it is not?LegalEagle1798

I first interpreted your argument as follows: "If we adopt a strict interpretation of the policy, we cannot accept any useful content, therefore we should not use the policy at all." This seemed like nonsense to me. If I misinterpreted you and, when you wrote "the issue is one of degree", you meant to say that we should adopt a reasonable interpretation of the policy when we use it to exclude criticisms, then I agree. A reasonable interpretation of the verifiability policy is that editors must be able to find the sourced information in the sources, but the sourced information does not have to appear in the sources words for words. With this reasonable interpretation of the no original research policy, the policy works perfectly fine to exclude unsourced criticisms without excluding all useful contents. -Lumière 22:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing you wrote is very true. Editors might interpret the policy in one way to remove criticisms of propaganda and interpret it in another way to accept the propaganda itself. If it is what you meant when you wrote "the issue is one of degree", I totally agree. However, the opposite problem is also very true. Forget about the lawers here, and consider the case where the article is not propaganda, but actually a useful legitimate information. In this case, editors can interpret the no original research policy in one way to suppress the legitimate information and in another way to accept criticisms about it. Therefore, the problem is not with the policy, but with the nature of human beings. The solution is to make sure that the policy is clearly understood and applied in a uniform way. Your help will be appreciated to improve the situation. -Lumière 14:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Publishing one's own translations in Wikipedia

I want to ask a question, as I don't know how to react. User:Vald adds his own translations of poems to the articles on Russian poets, e.g., here. I'm not a native English speaker; please clarify whether this may be classified as original research and whether the quality of his translations is sufficient to be kept. Or, perhaps, such poems should be moved to Wikiquote? I don't want to offend a potentially valuable contributor, so I'm asking someone more knowledgable to look into the matter. --Ghirla | talk 13:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Its Ok on Wikisource. We have an editor's translation from the Chinese, for example. Just add a link from the WP articles about the poet. Apwoolrich 14:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A few stanzas demonstrating the author's style are probably fine. Link to Wikisource for the rest. Make sure the poems are out of copyright. A translation is a derivative work, so if the original poem is copyrighted, the translation cannot legally be released under the GFDL. Deco 19:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, a translation of a non-copyrighted poem may still be subject to copyright. A spanish poem from the 19th century might be public domain, but if someone translates it to English - their english text is copyrighted. Yes, that is why high-school textbooks often commission new translations of Homer. SchmuckyTheCat 03:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have a related question. Are the translations (Japanese to English) in All your base are belong to us considered original research? If so, how would one go about providing "acceptable" translations of such material when none exists? ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 00:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Change the name of "original research" to "unsourceable research"

I don't think it should be called "original research." I've seen several people think that it means reporting information from primary sources. Many times I've been accused of original research for doing that --not making synthetic arguments or anything like that, but simply paraphrasing a quote from a primary source and providing a reference link for it. A lot of newbies think the rule against original research means that only research from secondary sources is allowed. "Original research" should be called "unsourceable research" or better yet, "unsourceable assertions." It would be much more readily understandable as to what is meant. RJII 04:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am relatively new to Wikipedia but I also read carefully the policy, which is a good combination to have a fresh opinion on this question, and I also think the title is far from expressing the core of the policy. However, I think the alternative "No unsourceable research" is not really better. The key point is that this policy is not only useful to suppress viewpoints that are not well established, but also and more often to preserve the integrity of well established viewpoints. For example, the sentence :"Joe, which is well known to have been convicted for sexual abuse against young children [ref], says that every young child should do whatever any adult ask. [ref]" does not attack the integrity of any well establised viewpoint. However, consider the following: "Joe, a catholic priest [ref], says that every young child should do whatever any adult ask. [ref]" If given its context, this last sentence appears to present the catholic viewpoint, to preserve the integrity of the catholic viewpoint, it must be sourced in a reputable publication for the catholic viewpoint. For this example, such a source does not exist, I think. Note that Joe might be the same person in both sentences. This means that we are not forced to suppress the viewpoint of Joe here, but only to present it in a different context. This example illustrates that the most important purpose of the requirement for a reputable source is not to suppress information, but to preserve the integrity of well established viewpoints. The above example was about the catholic viewpoint, but the same principle applies to the scientific viewpoint. Perhaps it is even more often the case that we need to protect the integrity of science than we have to protect the integrity of a religion, but the principle is universal and applies to all established viewpoints, religious or whatever. In particular, it is clear that what constitute a reputable publisher depends on the content that is sourced and how and in which context it is presented. --Lumière 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Need guidance on identifying OR in the case of .....

Recently the Template:Game of Go position, which is like the chess template generates a Go board at a specific position for articles, was changed to use an original coordinate system. There are several systems used in the literature and on Internet servers most of which share a number of features but none of which look like this. I complained on the talk page (but did not revert) that it strikes me as original research (even though personally I think it is probably easier to follow), it would be incompatible with other published accounts of games such as the one in this article (Cho Chikun) a reader going over a published account and analysis of the game would have a hard time checking out version for correctness or simply using the two together. Is this original research enough as to be reverted? Dalf | Talk 07:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of this change on the talk page is at: Template talk:Game of Go position#Four-Quadrant Coordinate System

Original research is irrelevant when it comes to things that users don't see. You're really grabbing at straws - I would try to oppose the change on more pragmatic grounds (other interested contributors are more familiar with existing systems). Deco 08:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The users DO see this, I am talking about the displayed coordinate system allong the sided of the board. So using the system on online Go servers i would say place a stone at A15 with this system the same move woudl be W1,N5. My consern is that if I buy a Go book or a report of a recent tourny I will be given the games written in some system that will be diffrent from this one (unless it is just a board with the stones numberd based on when they were placed). Dalf | Talk 08:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake - I thought you just meant the template arguments. If there is a widely accepted coordinate system it should be used. Otherwise, I'm unsure - I won't take a side. Deco 19:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The coordinate system for Go board can been seen as a layout rule of Wikipedia for Go board position. Although Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia CAN have its own Rules of Layout, even different from those of other encyclopedias. So why CANNOT Wikipedia's layout rule for Go board be different from other Go board layout rules? --Neo-Jay 08:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The way the policy is setup is not clear.

It is wrong to have a general requirement for a reputable publisher that is independent of the content and the way it is presented. The policy already indicates that the definition of reputable publisher is different for academic contents than it is for less rigourous contents. So the idea that the requirement depends on the contents and the way it is presented is there, but it is not clear enough. This is a very important aspect of the policy and it should be presented very clearly. For example, if a content is clearly the viewpoint of the catholics (the religion) and it is presented as such, a publication from the Vatican is perfectlty fine to source that viewpoint. However, if the Vatican itself enters into a scientific debate, just because the debate itself as some scientific pretention, then the Vatican's opinion in that debate automatically gains some scientific pretention as well and must be sourced in a reputable independent scientific publication. I don't think this is clear enough in the current formulation of the policy. --Lumière 18:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

See also my comment in #Change the name of "original research" to "unsourceable research". --Lumière 21:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"This should include websites"?

Someone added to "secondary sources": "This should include websites." That's unclear and likely open for discussion; thus I put it here for clarification. Harald88 20:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove citation from talk page?

Can someone get rid of the "this page has been cited by..." from the top of this talk page? Yes, it's all nice to give ourselves a pat on the back, but it's really irrelevant and counterproductive to anything we're trying to achieve here. Maybe these citations could be collected somewhere else? Stevage 21:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Primary/Secondary Vs Original/Not Original

Can someone explain to me in simple terms what is the connection between the division Primary/Secondary sources and the other division Original/Not Original research? --Lumière 21:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, is the term "sources" in the expressions "primary sources" and "secondary sources" the same as the term "sources" in the expression "reputable sources" used in WP:verifiability? If yes, can a primary source be a reputable souce? --Lumière 21:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for how it is understood in other fields, but in literary studies (and I think this holds true for other areas of the humanities) a primary source would be for example quoting from Moby Dick in an article about that work. Or in history, a primary source might be the text of congressional acts. A secondary source in the first instance would be citing from another work about Moby Dick; while in the second case, it might be a legal scholar or historian writing about a congressional act. That's how I've always undertood the distinction. As for your first question -- a fair amount of what goes into Wikipedia is in fact a form of original research, in so far as it involves drawing upon primary sources for information. However, such research generally does not run afoul of the understanding of OR as used here so long as the primary sources are not used to produce novel interpretations that have no support in secondary sources. older ≠ wiser 22:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Briefly:

• A source is a place we get information from. All uses of the word are in this sense.
• A primary source is a source derived directly from the topic or direct experience or recordings of the topic. This generally includes things like photographs, video recordings of the topic, interviews, specification documents, original papers on a concept, and so on.
• A secondary source is a source that lists, summarizes, and synthesizes other primary and secondary sources. It can tentatively be called a "reference work". Encyclopedias, dictionaries, survey papers, history books, textbooks, and so on are generally secondary sources.

Original research, in the sense we use it, has no relation to whether the source is primary or secondary, but rather whether it has been published in a reputable publication that is subject to review by experts. This helps to screen out information which is invented and pushed only by an individual or small group and not treated seriously by the expert community, who have an obligation to review the material they publish to protect their publication's reputation.

Both primary and secondary sources can be reputable or irreputable. For example, I might write an article about personal observations of an iceberg shaped like Elvis and publish them on my personal website, and this would be an irreputable primary source. An irreputable secondary source might draw on irreputable primary sources, might be heavily biased or selective in what it talks about, or might draw illogical conclusions in the process of synthesizing information. Either of these can be non-original if published in an appropriate forum, but generally if we cite irreputable sources we should also cite claims of their irreputability. Deco 22:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I am confused. If the primary/secondary source division has nothing to do with original research, why exactly do we have a section about it in a policy about original research? --Lumière 02:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In short, because Wikipedia is itself an encyclopedia and should exclusively be written as a secondary source, not a primary source. It's not that it has nothing to do with it - all original research is primary source material, but a primary source need not be original research. Deco 03:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am still confused. Maybe if you just explained with an example why people have to understand the primary/secondary source division to understand how the no original research policy works, i.e. to understand the rule in itself. Maybe it is not needed to understand the rule in itself, but it is some kind of motivation behind it. If that is the situation, it is a motivation that I have a hard time to understand, but I would like to understand it. --Lumière 04:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a little of both, really, the way I read it at least. Part of it says, if you find yourself writing primary material on Wikipedia, stop, because you're violating NOR - although you can also violate NOR in some cases with secondary material. Another part of it is just to discuss the role of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia as a secondary source in the context of written works in general. Maybe if you could explain what you find confusing about it, some contributors to this article could help clarify the text. Deco 08:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand now. There is just one sentence that you wrote that I believe is incorrect: "all original research is primary source material". This did not help, but it is not what confused me originally. One thing that confused me originally, but not anymore, is that the two following sentences are not in contradiction, but appear to be in contradiction: "[using] a primary source need not be original research." and "Wikipedia is itself an encyclopedia and should exclusively be written as a secondary source, not a primary source.". The basic point here is that it is fine to use reputable primary sources in a wikipedia article, but the overall article itself should not be a primary source, which means that it should be more than just a simple collection of primary source materials without any analysis, generalization, etc. However, the thing that confused me the most orginally is that there is a folk belief in the Wikipedia community that no orginal research means only that all contents must have a reputable source. From what I understand now, it is possible to explain this main rule of the no original research policy without making any reference to primary/secondary source, but there is an additional rule in this policy: an article that is presented as a primary source, even if it contains only reputable primary source materials, is still not acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Lumière 14:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that I believe I understand, I would say that the current organization and formulation of the policy should be improved. In particular, the additional rule is not the most important and it is confusing to essentially begin the explanation of the no original research policy with this rule. There should be earlier in the text two or three sentences that present the wholeness and mention that there is a main rule and an additional rule. Better, I would even suggest that we move the additional rule and all references to the primary/secondary source division into a separate policy. --Lumière 14:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I read again the policy, and I realize that it is not what I explained in the striked comment above. I am still confused. I guess what confuses me is that most of the policy simply say that we must have contents with a reputable source and most people seem to be believe that this is what "no orginal research" means in practice. So, why do we need to refer to the primary/secondary source division? --Lumière 14:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is intended to use primary and secondary sources; it's not meant to be a primary or secondary sources. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The above is a cut and paste of a comment that was written before by Friday. Friday, I hope you do not mind that I took your comment out of context, but I wounder if this a part of the explanation that I am looking for? --Lumière 15:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me give my interpretation of Friday's comment by adding what I believe was implicit in this comment:

Wikipedia is intended to use [reputable] primary and [reputable] secondary sources; it's not meant to be a secondary source [that is not entirely supported by external reputable sources] or a primary source.

Is this a good interpretation? Clearly the addition of the two "reputable" makes sense. The addition of "that is not entirely..." also makes sense because clearly we should hope that a wikipia article will be used as a secondary source by others. If this interpretation is correct, then I can unstrike my striked comment because it is what I previously understood. --Lumière 15:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, one can observe that Friday's comment makes no formal use of the distinction between primary and secondary sources. It is formally equivallent to:

Wikipedia is intended to use [reputable] sources; it's not meant to be a [something implicit here] source.

Clearly, there is something implicit behind the last "source". This is what my interpretation provides. However, my interpretation distinguishes primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is not intended to be a primary source at all. It is not intended to be a secondary source that is supported through internal review. Instead, as a secondary source it must be supported by external reputable sources. This interpretation is also consistent with Deco's explanations. So, I start to believe that it might be correct. Any opinion? --Lumière 17:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this comment from tertiary source says it best: "Encyclopedias [...] are examples of materials that typically embrace both secondary and tertiary sources, presenting on the one hand commentary and analysis, while on the other attempting to provide a synoptic overview of the material available on the topic." So Wikipedia is part secondary, part tertiary (tertiary sources simply compile material from primary and secondary sources). Strictly interpreted, NOR would forbid any sort of commentary or analysis, but in practice we can't write many useful articles without this kind of freedom.

This is a fundamental issue. We cannot discuss it in the abstract. Give me examples of articles that we should definitively accept in Wikipedia and are prohibited by WP policy. I don't see what these articles are. The simple fact that we are allowed to include every thing that was previously published in a reputable source means that we can in principle do as well as all these reputable sources taken together. That is pretty good. --Lumière 23:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Reputability of sources and its relation to NOR is a little bit tricky. On one hand we can't allow just any source to establish something is not original research, because it's trivial for a crank to publish an idea in many ways that don't prove anything, such as on the web. On the other hand, as this policy says, "In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources." Deco 18:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the "Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources." Can someone provide examples to illustrate what this means because I do not think that we can implement this approach in a way that is acceptable in an encyclopedia. The point is that a discussion on sources will be controversial and totally off topic. Also, the sources that must be used to support the arguments in such a discussion are unlikely to be easy to find, and whatever sources will be found will most likely be not more acceptable than the sources that are discussed. Should these other sources also be discussed? This can go forever. This approach seems totally unrealistic. Such a discussion is necessary, of course, but it does not need to be a part of the article. If there is no agreement, the editors should use standard means such as Rfc. This is much more reasonable and can only improve the quality of the outcome because it calls for additional expertise. --Lumière 23:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, in many cases there is little ambiguity about what constitutes a reputable source. For example, the policy is reasonably clear about what is a reputable scholarly publication. --Lumière 23:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Added some motivation

I added some text describing the motivation for NOR. Please review for accuracy and add any suitable citations that you know of. The idea is to simultaneously describe why NOR is necessary and give a clear-cut, concrete of example of the sort of thing it prevents, while giving a little history too. If there's strong opposition to this addition it's okay to remove it. Deco 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How to determine what is a reputable source

This is not to say that Wikipedia may not cover such theories if they are already noteworthy. For example, there may be a theory that eerything in the universe has evolve from paper clips; if this theory has somehow generated enough attention that the New York Times runs a story about the phenomenon, it is not considered original research to cover the theory on Wikipedia. Just make sure you don't misrepresent the reality of how seriously this "theory" is taken.

The above paragraph was just added to the section "Why do we exclude original research?" of the policy by an anon IP. I took it to this talk page because I think it should be discussed. The first problem with this proposal is that when you start to explain that the theory is not serious, you are doing original research. There is a much more serious problem because, as it is stated now, this proposal says that this ridiculous story can be added in a serious article about the expansion of the universe. I do think that the above paragraph leads to a valid point, but clearly many issues need to be clarify. As I try to argue before (see #The way the policy is setup is not clear.), the solution is to consider that what is a reputable source depends on the contribution and its context. For example, it makes no sense that this ridiculous story polutes an otherwise serious scientific article. This is taken care if we use the fact that to add a contribution in a scientific context, a reputable scientific source is required. There is no real issue that this ridiculous story is added in an article about strange stories. --Lumière 21:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do have articles about well-known crank theories, but we describe them as crank theories, citing sources that describe why they're wrong, such as the famous Time Cube. Another famous example is cold fusion, which as far as we know may not exist yet has been the topic of vehement discussion in many professional journals. Writing about something is not the same as supporting it (as in Nazism). Deco 03:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we agree. If some crank theory is discussed in a reputable scientific journal, then it fits in a scientific context. I am only saying that it needs to have the appropriate source. The problem would only occur if you used your last argument to support the inclusion of any ridiculous content in a scientific article, but you actually only provided examples where the content was previously published in a reputable scientific source. So, it seems that we agree.

A minor point, minor because it is not related to the examples that you provided here, is that I do not think that in general we should refer blindly to the current practice to justify some interpretation of the policy. To the contrary, I think that there is a lot that is wrong in the current practice because the policies are misunderstood. --Lumière 04:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias against sourced research

As counter-intuitive as it seems, I'd like to note that there's a built-in bias against providing sourced research on Wikipedia. There are a number of Wikipedia "editors" who do little or no searching for sources, but rather try to prevent the sourced research that others have found that conflicts with their POV from being added into articles. They'll claim it's a "misinterpretation" of the sources, so the researcher/editor is relegated to simply providing direct qoutes. Then the POV-motivated critics come along and claim that the quotes are taken out of context, and claims of "original research" are renewed. This applies to both primary and secondary sources. God forbid adding any explanatory editorial among the quotes at all, lest there are claims of "original research" there as well. So, you can't have an article with all quotes, you can't have an article with no quotes, and you can't have an article with any explanation of sources or quotes. Ultimately, the editor is taken to arbitration and he is banned for "original research." Even for the most honest of editors, it's a no-win situation if original research is claimed. There must be a better way. RJII 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This can indeed be a problem. I totally agree. I have also seen it. Can you give concrete examples. I would like to see more examples. However, we cannot reject the no original research policy because of that. We should complement it with an explanation that no original research does not mean that one does not need to carefully understand the sourced article. I believe that the importance of expert wikipedian editors that can understand the sources is not acknowledged enough. It should be explained that it is fine, and in fact necessary, to argue with an understanding of a sourced article that some new contribution is perfectly supported by this sourced article. It is important, however, that the contribution really respects the content and even the spirit of the sourced article. This is not original research at all. It is the opposite of it: it is easy to misrepresent a sourced article and thus present original research by extracting a few quotes from it, but the above requirement prevents it. --Lumière 21:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've got an arbitration case against me now, but it's mixed with other claims of personal attacks and such [5]. So, it's not a concrete example. There really needs to be something in the original research policy about "good faith," to protect the editor from being banned when he's done his best to represent the sources. If original research is done in good faith, he shouldn't be penalized for it. And, it needs to be made clear that it's improper to claim something is original research without requesting a source for it. I have claims against me for original research for things that no one has ever requested a source for, and the arbitrators agreeing it's original research without asking for sources either. How can original research be legitimately asserted without verifying that it's original research by asking the editor for his sources? It's absurd. There needs to be two policy changes made: 1) No penalization for good faith original research (meaning flawed understanding of the sources) and 2) Do not claim original research without requesting sources to verify whether it's original research. (which needs to made very clear to arbitrators). RJII 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, POV pushers often twist policy to suit their aims. The correct action is to elevate such disputes to an appropriate forum where disinterested contributors can analyze the changes and help decide whether the arguments have merit. The most important thing is to follow the spirit of the policy as a whole, which often involves bending the rules just a little. Deco 03:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If the rules need to be bent, then there's something wrong with the rules. RJII 03:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In what we discuss here, there is no need to bend the rule. In the general case, no rule is perfect, and if, after a consideration of the rule and its spirit, there is a consensus to bend it "a little", it is OK. Of course, we do not have to say it explicitly in the official policy -- it is going to happen anyway. What is really needed here is not a bending of the rule, but a clarification of the rule.

Whether or not an editor should always provide the sources for all of its contributions is the current subject of discussion in the WP:verifiability talk page. This kind of issues, which RJII mentions, must be taken care by the verifiability policy. Apparently, it will be OK not to provide the sources in some situations, but in all cases ultimately the contribution can be removed if it is not sourced. --Lumière 04:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, I followed your link to your arbitration. I just read quickly the arbitration page. I did not have the time to follow links inside that page. From an external perspective, your case looks good. I personally think that Wikipedia is very hard for any new comer that comes with a view to defend. The opponents tend to attack you every time you break a small rule, and many times they even refer to rule that are not official. When one is under constant attacks, some of these attacks being very rude, one can easily lose his temper. I see that you did not lose your temper, perhaps a little. IMO, you are doing fine! --Lumière 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But, unfortunately I added my statements after 4 arbitrators already voted, because I didn't know the Workshop page existed. So, we'll see. RJII 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright bias

There is another bias against sourced research - sometimes a new article is created which includes external links and/or references, and the article is voted for deletion — because the voters think it is copied from the source(s). If the contributor had neglected to add references, the article would probably have been less likely to be deleted! I know several newbies who were turned off Wikipedia when this happened to articles they created. ··gracefool |☺ 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Did it happens with sources with a reputable publisher? --Lumière 02:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

More to be said about the role of experts.

However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.

Copied from the section "The role of expert editors". I think that the purpose of this sentence is just to summarize what was said in the section, which is that experts do not have more right to present original research than any other editors. I think we should be more direct to the point. The fact is that experts do play a special role in Wikipedia articles. We still need them to understand source articles and present their content fairly with no original research. It is fine that a few experts on a topic determine together that some source articles are well represented in some WP article on that topic. A non expert will have to understand these source articles before he can argue against them. In particular, a non expert cannot use his own ignorance to argue that most of the content must be replaced with exact quotes from these articles. This will significantly reduce the quality of the article and discourage these experts from contributing in Wikipedia. IMO, we have to count on the fact that many experts will be interested in this article and check it for neutral point of view and especially for no original research. There is a tag to call for expertize on a topic. Perhaps we should mention it in that section. --Lumière 05:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, not to be rude, but in the past 50 edits as of now, 33 are from you, and I don't see a single substantive suggestion. Some were questions, which I hope have been answered to your satisfaction. Many of the remainder seem to be commentary with no clear focus. Would it be possible for you to muse in your head, rather than on this page, then if you find you have a clear suggestion for improvement to post it here with your reasoning? It would help people to understand what suggestion(s) you may actually have. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, with regard to the 33 edits, you have a good point. However, the issue is that I revise a lot each of my comment several times, not that I have so many comments. Still, I admit that it would be better that I do not revise so often each of my comments because it becomes less easy to use the history. This is a valid criticism, I am aware that I should do something about it, and I would do my best to correct the situation. It is just that it is the way I always worked: somehow I focus more after I officialy posted a comment. Now, let me dismiss entirely the remainder of your comment. I believe that my comments, including the one just above, are toughtful and should help discussions that will improve Wikipedia policy. Also, what you say is not true: I often propose specific edits or, if not, some general line of action together with my comments. --Lumière 14:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you used "Preview" more often. Also Edit summaries would be appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the point in "dismissing entirely the remainder", unless your intent is to insult me. I noted you had asked questions and made comments. What specific suggestions have you made? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In the above I just made the suggestion to explain that experts are useful to determine if an article is original research or not, and that there is a tag to call for such expertise. I did not suggest precise statements. At other times, I did provide precise statements. --Lumière 18:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as the "totally dismiss" is concerned, I did not want to insult you. I meant that I totally disagree. Clearly, I did not really dismiss (or ignore) it, because I replied after. --Lumière 18:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Email to ask question is original research?

Someone is deleting a claim that a person is a member of Sigma Xi, the honorary Scientific Research Society, so I emailed the Society to make sure and they responded that the person is indeed an active member. They don't have a printed book where the names are listed --it's all in a computer database. What do I do? How can I cite it? Is this original research? I'm sure the editor will continue deleting it, unless I have a way to cite it. RJII 03:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If the article is about the person and the person has a website or any other self-published source that contains this information, then you can cite this website or self-published source. This is in accord with the Verifiability policy. It is mentioned in the sections on Self-published sources. Otherwise, I don't see what else can help you. --Lumière 06:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So I can cite a self-published source --the scientist himself sayng he's a member. Ok. I'll try that. I just know what's going to happen though. It's going to be deleted on the account that it's "self-referential" or something like that. RJII 21:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this may happen, but I think this rule is reasonably understood by the admins and you should have all the support you need. Be sure that the wikipedia article where you include this info is about the scientist, not about anything else. IMO, this extra condition does not really apply to your case, but it is still a part of the rule. It is useful to have this extra condition in other cases. For example, if the info that is sourced is that the scientist has claimed to have discovered a new theory. This claim can be included in an WP article about the scientist, even if it is only self sourced, but not in another WP article where the claimed theory could be relevant. --Lumière 23:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

More appreciative of the role of experts

Draft proposal: Change

Otherwise, we hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.

to

Otherwise, we hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. Expert editors are useful to evaluate whether or not an article contains original research. In case of dispute, expert editors are invited to help non expert editors understand the sources. However, the non expert editors do not have to obey to the expert editors: such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.

We should perhaps even add a new sentence (just before the last sentence) to invite non expert editors to not interfer when to the best of their endeavours the expert editors respect WP policy. --Lumière 07:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And who would be there to verify their bias, if not the non-expert (read: less biased) editors? Harald88 07:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This does not push out the non expert editors at all. The goal is only to be more appreciative of the expert editors.

As far as avoiding bias is concerned, there are two parts to the answer. First you assume that the experts are not a community of people with divergent opinions that can verify each other bias. Second, there is nothing in my proposal that says that the non expert editors should not use their common sense. Read carefully: "when to the best of their endeavours the expert editors respect WP policy". Also, read the next sentence: "non expert editors do not have to obey to the expert editors". So, this proposal is careful not to push out the non expert editors.

Maybe the optional sentence could be explained better. It is fine that a non expert editor ask questions, etc. to see better what is going on. The kind of situations that we want to avoid is that a non expert editor insists that the expert editors use exact quotes from the sources because it is his only way to see that it is NOR. This would significantly diminish the quality of the article and will discourage expert editors to contribute. --Lumière 08:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

object I object to all of the shotgunned changes. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My mistake if you had the impression that it was a poll! The purpose of this draft is to stimulate thoughtful comments. BTW, this section has no real policy content. Even the fact that expert editors did not receive any previlege is redundant. It could be moved to a guideline. There is no need to vote. --Lumière 14:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the current text is accurate and brief. It acknowledges that experts have "knowledge of other published sources", which is positive. The comment that "experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia" seems a bit superfluous and out-of-context, but I guess somebody felt it was important. Deco 16:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is to say who is an expert and who is not an expert? Further, ONLY references to sources count. If I can disprove an "expert" by googling something I know very little about and can find a GOOD source that proves the expert wrong, then that source is what matters and not who is an "expert". Interpretation differences must also be about finding futher sources that define the terms, provide context, etc. WAS 4.250 18:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Experts have no explicit authority, but they are often respected community members who other users are willing to trust in matters that they have expert knowledge about; these users prefer to focus their time on fact-checking more dubious contributions. For example, if I write something about, say, linked lists, there's a much better chance it's accurate than if I write something about the American Civil War, because I have a formal education in computer science (and not in history). On the other hand, you're right that even experts really need to be fact-checked and especially copyedited like any other users. I see it as a matter of prioritization. Deco 18:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Deco. We understand the same principle. I only felt that more should be said about the usefulness of experts in the last paragraph. The very fact that Deco had to explain his point prove that I am right, I think. --Lumière 19:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with WAS that there is no way to garantee that an editor is an expert. This is why this paragraph cannot be policy. It can only be a guideline. It does not mean that it is not important. There is still something to say about the role of experts and also about how those who know that they are not expert editors should behave. One thing is certain is that they should not get intimidated by those who claim to be experts. Yet, if they know that they are not expert, they should take into consideration that others might know better than they do. It is a delicate balance. We cannot capture every thing in a paragraph, but I think the current paragraph is much too short. --Lumière 19:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's quote

The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history

What an embarrassing statement. "practical means to deal with physics cranks" sounds like wikipedia is one of those flame-ridden usenet groups. This is also undoubtedly insulting to whoever get labeled as such person. Please raise the bar of civility here. This isn't helping it.

The whole paragraph sounds to me like wikipedia editors are some "counter crankism unit" in a holy war against the evil "charlatans" or "crackpots" or whatever. Note that many of the so-called "cranks" honestly believe in their theories and have spent a lot of time developing them. (Alchemy was just as "crankish" but it inspired developments in "real science")

Such hostility is really useless. Politely asking "please show me a journal where your work is published (in accordance with the wikipedia policy)" will do the job just as well. --Anon84.x 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot more agree with Anon84.x. Putting the attention on defamatory notions such as "charlatans" or "crackpots" is the best way to encourage editors to forget about the basic rules. Some editors, as Anon84.x explains, enter into an holy war against vague notions such as "crackpots". This is dangerous and can lead to highly biased suppression of information. This is also why I think that the basic rules should be clear and well explained. For a while, I fighted in the talk page of the NPOV policy against a rule that implies that "non significant" information should not be included in an article. The editors supporting that rule argumented that this rule was necessary to remove theory of "crackpots". This was the exact term used. I asked what is the definition of "significant" and the answer was that editors can determine together what it means. Finally, I gave up that fight because I accepted that it makes sense that editors together determine to the best of their endeavours if a contribution is acceptable for inclusion. However, we should be very careful about the way this principle is applied. This is such a delicate issue! We should rely as much as possible on objective criteria. I even wounder if it would not be better to entirely rely on objective criteria as do the No original research and the Verifiability policies. Of course, the choice of these criteria involves some subjectivity, but not their implementation. It is only the NPOV policy that has this special rule based on a highly subjective notion, "significant", which can be used to remove about anything. This together with the holy war against "crackpots" can lead to unnecessary suppression of information by editors that know little about the given topics. Lumière 21:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I am going further than Anon84.x in my analysis. Anon84.x's comment was only that instead of being rude with these notions of "crackpots", etc., we should simply politely refer to the objective rules of Verifiability and No original research. I am going a step ahead and point out that there is even a subjective rule in the NPOV policy that can be used to remove about anything. How does it look when you use that subjective rule with the explanation that this is a "crackpot" theory? It looks very bad! --Lumière 21:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, consider Jimbo's audience. At the time there was an issue with articles that we knew were full of shit, but we couldn't seem to find a policy to use to delete them, since cranks go out of their way to make their theories seem plausible, including false references, unfalsifiable claims, and so on. He was talking to the useful contributors who wanted a way to get rid of these articles, or at least rewrite them from the perspective that the theory is unsubstantiated. This does not give us license to call these people by these names to their faces — that is biting the newbies and quite rude. Even in the face of clear vandalism or obvious unverifiable, biased, or original information, we must always keep in mind that a contributor who's tired of testing the system may decide to turn over a new leaf. Deco 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting. You are suggesting that at the time the policy was not sufficient, and so new rules were needed. Was this before NOR? If not, which new rules were added or at the least considered? --Lumière 00:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a very hypocritical attitude. What made the "established" wikipedians' own "original research" (and there was and still is a lot of it) more valid? couldn't it be possibly "full of shit", as you call it, just as well? What about standards of justice? Self criticism? Objective quality standards? I am repulsed by your answer just as I'm repulsed by Jimbo's quote --Anon84.x 06:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the rule was originally created as a means of combatting a deliberately malicious element. Now it is also put to good use in helping to instruct and refine contributions by well-meaning contributors as well. Deco 07:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that these so-called "cranks" are malicious. Original thinking, even if not based on established norms or methods, is not "malicious" and should not be "combatted". This sounds just like the usenet flame mentality. What a disgrace. I am repulsed. --Anon84.x 07:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about anyone in violation of the rule when I say cranks. I'm saying that cranks violate the rule, and that this inspired the rule's original design, but not that all violators are cranks. Please don't misinterpret me - I'm sure we're in agreement about this. Deco 08:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'd take this policy discussion more seriously if it were initiated by an individual with a demonstrable edit history of encyclopedic content, rather than just arguing on project pages. To paraphrase (for civility) the Sam Rayburn quote, "Any mule can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one." How about spending time actually editing articles, instead of just offering theoretic critiques and being "repulsed" by the "disgrace" of Wikipedia? —Leflyman^Talk 08:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Please keep the dicussion on-topic. --Anon84.x 09:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Troll-like disruptive behavior and sock-puppetry is germanely on topic. If you are not here to contribute positively to Wikipedia, then insofar as the project's goals, arguing about what policy should/should not be is moot. Demonstrating your intent to improve the site through practical application, rather than specious theory will carry more weight than any amount of grandstanding about "embarrassing statements" and "hypocritical attitudes."—Leflyman^Talk 09:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The topic says "Jimbo's quote", not "Flame the critic" --Anon84.x 09:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of preserving order, I'll make a concession: no user, even if they are actually a troll who refuses to compromise, accept criticism, or respect others, should be treated aggressively right off the bat - NOR is a tool for controlling introduction of content into articles that is not widely accepted, not a way of insulting or demeaning people's personal theories, and should be applied to content, not people. I've had some negative experiences with real trolls on Wikipedia who were determined to turn an article with consensus into a soapbox for their personal beliefs, but one should always attempt friendly reasoning and common sense before whipping out accusations of policy violation. I do not believe if Jimbo were speaking to the "physics cranks" he refers to that he would have used that terminology. Deco 09:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My point was that the quote encourages unneeded (and uncivil) hostility towards these "original researchers". I suggest that it would be linked to rather than inlined on the policy itself. Other than that, I have nothing more to add. --Anon84.x 10:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether this quote would actually inspire such a reaction, but the proposal for moving it seems valid to me, especially as it constitutes more of a historical note than an "effective" part of the policy. Besides, it's an awfully long quote. Maybe we can have a "History" subpage or something? Deco 10:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Real life example

Here's a recent "real life" case for you to analyse. In the Bigfoot article, User:Beckjord has presented his published theory that Bigfoots might actually exist: (let's ignore whether this is actually true or not)

.. According to Beckjord, Sarich identified the blood as being that from an "unknown higher primate". Beckjord then had a Dr. Stephen Rosen and a Dr. Ellis R. Kerley (both at the University of Maryland) examine hair samples associated with the same blood as well as unknown hair samples from at least 3 other locations and they, according to Beckjord, attributed them to "unknown primate". Tom Moore of the Wyoming Fish and Game lab also identified the hair samples as coming from an unknown primate. ..

Of course, over the history many such theories were made by many researchers. The question is, how much prominence should be given to Beckjord's theory?

The NPOV policy gives a vague principle in which if a theory is "significant minority" it should be mentioned. But what exactly does "significant minority" means? is it significant minority of the general population? of wikipedians? of experts?. And also, what makes a minority "significant". What makes a view significant? are there answers to this questions covered by real policies, and not wikpedia's "street rules"? --Anon84.x 22:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Any policy is bound to require some interpretation by its users. For example, verifiability and no original research rely on the notion of reputable sources, with the understanding that what is a reputable source depends on the content that is sourced. For scientific content, we can give a clear definition of reputable source, but what is a scientific content? There are border line cases where it is not obvious to determine if a content is scientific or not. For the case of "view held by a significant minority", Jimbo provided some criteria: it must have prominent adherents. Of course, what is a prominent adherent is still subjective, but I think that it was an excellent attempt to capture the notion of a view held by a significant minority. However, the notion of "significant view" is totally undefined. Really, you ask those who present themselve as experts of the NPOV policy and they say that it must be determined jointly by the editors. In principle, just to be extreme, editors could argue that standard classical mechanics is non significant because it is too elementary. Anyway, I agree with the essential of your point. --Lumière 22:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I totally agree with your point when we consider the policy that is understood by the admins. Admins are constantly confused and contradict each other when they discuss the policy. They behave as if there was no policy. The policy itself needs improvement, but the much bigger problem is how it is understood. It is total confusion! --Lumière 22:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon84.x. There is one aspect that you may be missing in your analysis above. An article in Wikipedia will, given time and patience, attract a sufficient number of editors that if they contribute to the article as per the guidelines of WP:V, these issues of what is considered "significant minority" will be explored and eventually resolved by editors' colaboration efforts. Given time, previous experience tell us, articles reach that coveted status of NPOV. It is not instant, and many an article in Wikipedia still do not fully conform to content policies. The mistake that new editors make is to expect that each and every article in Wikipedia is already conforming with policy. We believe that eventually we will get there, but for now consider it to be a petty darn good work in progress. You may want to read Wiki is not paper]. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your answer seems to be that "an article will develop a consensus about these definitions over time". I.e your answer is that my questions are determined by "street rules". The policy is intentionally vague. Thus IMO the policy does not really say anything beyond the obvious. Correct me if I'm wrong. To be sure, I'll ask again. Minority is defined as "The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole." What are the groups here? --Anon84.x 06:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I am also interested to know Jossi's answer, or any other expert's answer. --Lumière 06:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, an article which gives undue weight to a minority theory, either by explicit statement or implicit organization of content, can be considered an NPOV violation. In these cases one good way to reach a compromise might be:

• Briefen the statement to a very dense summary. Possibly add mention of counterevidence from other sources.
• Copy the previous text to the talk page for possible restoration at a later date, when its length no longer creates disproportional emphasis.

Deco 10:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This explains how to reduce the space given to a view. An important part of the question was also how to determine how much space should be given to the view. It is the specific criteria (such as the view is held by a significant minority) that needs to be clarify. In other words, how do the editors decide that a theory is a "minority theory"? Lumière 11:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Minority is defined as "the smaller in number of two groups forming a whole." What are the groups here? --11:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not USENET

If editors want to engage in "conversations" rather than gathering consensus for specific proposals for the improvement of this policy, I would suggest they susbcribe to the mailing list or handle these conversations on IRC at #wikipedia-en. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You have a point, but it is hard not to talk about Jimbo from times to times. Lumière 01:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree --Anon84.x 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well! Jimbo is the ultimate authority in Wikipedia, unless something changed. Or unless I misunderstood the situation. --Lumière 14:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Connection with reliable source and verifiability

This edit relates to the overall organization of the policy and its connection with other policies and guidelines. Lumière 11:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Original research being allowed?

Keepers of the policy needed. I'm amazed that people are actually voting in an AfD that it's not that important to avoid original research, and keeping an article that is pure original research is ok. They're obviously uninformed voters and an anon's aggressive wording is not helping thing, as some voters are voting to be contradictory to the anon. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest streets in London. - Taxman ^Talk 16:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Presumably the closing admin will be savvy enough to discount any "vote" that reads "Keep -- nothing wrong with original research..." Jkelly 17:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Presumably closing admin will be savvy enough to realise that a majority of people ignoring the rule despite it having been mentioned intend for it to be ignored, as per policy,'ignore all rules' (when the majority feels it is appropriate, that is). Sandpiper 00:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I just had a look at the vote and arguments there. Perhaps people working on this page should take a keen look too. I would contend that reading distances off a map is no more original research than citing a book written in French. Someone has gone out and measured streets, made notes, and then translated that information into a map. Which is supposed to be an easy to use, accurate, graphical representation of that information, just as words printed on a page represent information devised by someone who strung those words together. A different language, but both do exactly the same task. Now it is being argued that because something is represented in a drawing instead of words, it is an inadmissable source. English is a pretty repetitious language, only 26 letters. So what about Chinese? If I have to get out a dictionary and look up every single character to see what a text means, does that invalidate it as a reference? can't cite Egyptian Hieroglyphics, because only 100 people in the whole world can read them? I bet a lot more people can read a distance straight off a map than can read those. Sandpiper 01:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this particular case is clear-cut. Whether something is sufficiently original research to be excluded from Wikipedia is a subjective judgement depending partly on the amount of original interpretation involved. There are things that involve inventing all kinds of original ideas, which are clearly OR, things taken directly from sources, which are clearly not, and then there's things involving a small amount of interpretation or combining of elements, which is somewhere in the middle and, I think, necessary on occasion for improved presentation. Deco 00:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Primary Vs Secondary sources

This is weird! When you follow the wikilinks for primary and secondary sources (which are provided in the project page), the explanation of these concepts that you obtain is only meaningful in the context of the work of historians. This is weird because we are not only constructing history when we create Wikipedia. -Lumière 04:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I havn't checked to see what this says right now (these things seem to change), but i must agree with you that interpretation of these things depends very much on what you are talking about. Some subjects are much more clear cut than others in what is identifiably factual. The concept of primary and secondary sources fits well in the study of history, but can be more difficult to apply elsewhere. What do you do if there are no written sources because something is blindingly obvious? Now perhaps an example of a primary source would be a map. Of a secondary source, a table of road lengths derived from the map. So it would not be legitimate for someone to go out and create a map, then publish it on wiki, but it would be legitimate to compile a table of road lengths, essentially just a tabulation of the maps data in a different form, and list it on wiki. Sandpiper 09:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Finally, after a second thought, even though it is weird that the explanation is given in the context of the work of historian, it gives an understanding about what is meant here (in this policy) by primary Vs secondary source. The key sentence (in the target articles of these wikilinks) is that whether something is a primary source or a secondary source depends more about the way it is used than it depends on its content. For example, a scientific textbook is normally a secondary source, but if you use it to compare the style of writing of scientists in the past with their modern style, then it becomes a primary source: a primary ingredient in some analysis, generalization, etc. Similarly, an interview can in general be used as a primary source or a secondary source, but we can only use an interview as a primary source in Wikipedia (because it is dubious as a secondary source.) A map can be seen as the result of a collection and analysis of different kind of data, especially if it contains information about notable buildings, etc. so it can be seen as a secondary source. Of course, in the work of historian, old maps are primary sources. It seems to me that this dichotomie is closely related to the dichotomie opinions/facts. When you use some source as a primary source, then you do not use it for the view that it contains, but for the fact that someone had this view. For example, when one uses an old map as a primary source, one does not take at all for granted what is in the map, but instead consider this map as a testimony of the way people view the world at the time. -Lumière 13:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR#Disputes over how established a view is

"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"

Does this mean that a significant minority is defined by a minority having prominent adherents, or does "significant minority" have its own definition (numerically significant minority?), and "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" can also have prominent adherents that may just be harder to name? And while the question was raised about, it does need attention, I think: what is a "prominent adherent"?

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia""

What is "extremely small" or "vastly limited"? Numerically/percentage-wise small? Or the absence of a "prominent adherent"? Schizombie 06:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The terms are subjective, and I believe it would be counterproductive to define them precisely. Deco 07:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - this is the sort of thing editors on a given page should try to work out on a case-by-case basis. If they cannot reach consensus, then there is probably a deeper problem in the discussion and more specific guidelines will not help. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the basic principle that the policy should be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. There is a limit to any attempt to add precision. At some point, it may just bring more confusion. The point is well taken. However, it does not mean that necessarily there is nothing we can add to the policy to clarify it. Any useful precision that we can add, will make the policy more useful in the case of dispute. Whether some precision is useful to add or not, should be seriously considered on a case-by-case basis. I believe that there is room for more precision in the case of notability criteria. Schizombie just raised questions and did not yet proposed any useful clarifications that we could add to the notability criteria. Still, I think we should consider this as an open issue. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 17:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

For example, since to my surprise this question was raised, we should clarify if the notability criteria (i.e. the criteria that is discussed above) is in itself a valid ground for exclusion. What I mean is that if it seems obvious to an editor that some material violates the notability criteria, and that after some inquiry and discussions there seem to be a consensus that it is the case, is that a valid ground for exclusion? I would say yes. The alternative is that even such a non notable material can be included if another factor such as significance/relevancy is not violated. In both cases, the decision is taken by consensus, but the guidelines are different in these two cases. Leaving this issue unclear will just make a consensus much more difficult to obtain. I personally vote for the former interpretation, which I believe is the one adopted in practice. It is more exclusionistic than the latter, but if there is a consensus that something is not notable, why should we include it? Moreover, this former interpretation of the policy is simpler in the case where one criteria such as notability is clearly violated. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A handful of edits =

Katefan0 reverted an edit I made to the article that contained multiple changes. Because she did not instead simply edit the changes she disagreed with, I'm not sure what parts were objectionable. I've modified and restored my edits, and am commenting here on some specific parts of my changes, to further discussion.

• Adding "from a primary source" to the description of secondary source - This is merely a clarification. The Secondary source article itself explains that secondary sources are based on primary sources, adding the text here helps keep the definition consistent.
• Inserting a primary vs secondary example - I don't think that giving an example of primary vs secondary immediately after introducing the terms should be controversial. Perhaps the JAMA example wasn't ideal, so in this edit I've borrowed and modified the "Grant's Diary" example we were already using at secondary source.
• Deletion of "(that is, not self-published)" in the paragraph on wikipedia inclusion - Maybe this isn't completely consensus, but the key distinction here is that we want the source to be reputable. We do indeed cite reputable self-published sources. A key example would be citing an editorial in the New York Times. Editorials are authored by the staff of the paper, and are published by the paper, and are effectively self-published. However, because the source is considered reputable, we use it.
• Other edits - There were some other changes intended to be primarily grammatical.

Thanks! - O^O 00:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand what a secondary source is. Do not change policies without consensus. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I find the tone of your statement somewhat rude, bordering on how one would treat a newbie or suspected troll. You are mistaken in thinking I misunderstand secondary sources. Do not revert my changes without discussion here. In particular, secondary (or higher) sources rely on primary sources; that is their very nature. My edit made at 14:43 was extremely narrow, only inserting this clarification and changing a word that had just been inserted by SlimVirgin. Also, the fact that you are reverting to INCLUDE SlimVirgin's edits and EXCLUDE mine indicates that you are either being sloppy or prejudiced in your reverts. - O^O 14:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You continue to misunderstand what a secondary source is. A secondary source is a source that is not a primary source - a compilation of information from secondary sources is a secondary source. Slim is not changing the policy, or making factual errors - you are. Please stop editing this important policy without gathering consensus. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who pointed out this edit to O^O, and I also noticed that it was not really discussed in the talk page. Nevertheless, the sentence

"That is, we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate."

is perfectly fine. As Slim pointed out, it appears to contain an inconsistency, but actually it does not. This sentence makes perfect sense, and it was the policy for months. Here is why it makes perfect sense. The analytical, evaluative, etc. content of an article is its essential content. Every thing else are just basic ingredients that are used in this essential content. Because of its evaluative, analytical, etc. aspects, the support for this essential content should be secondary sources, not primary sources. This is not in contradiction with the fact that we can also cite primary sources because, while reporting what is published in secondary sources, it is very natural to cite primary sources, the basic ingredients. Therefore, I think that we should keep the sentence as it was for the last months. As it was, it conveyed an important understanding. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that removing "secondary" from the sentence can help remove an apparent contradiction, but it also remove an important understanding. Therefore, instead of removing it, we should simply add a sentence that says that it is normal to also cite primary sources when we report what was published in reputable secondary sources. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 16:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't only report what other reliable secondary sources have published. We report what reliable primary sources have published too e.g. official trial transcripts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree if you mean that we can report on this official trial transcript, used as a primary source, without any secondary source to provide the context. In accordance with policy, you would have to avoid any interpretation, any evaluative claim, etc. on top of this official transcript, if you want to include it without a secondary source to support this context. This is almost impossible and not what we want to do anyway when we report on such a primary source. You miss the point that "used as a primary source" means used as a basic ingredient without any interpretation, evaluative claim, etc. on top of it. By definition, you must have a secondary source to provide this context. An example where this context is not provided would be an article that is only a list of primary source data, without any interpretation on top of this list, but this must violate What Wikipedia is not, I think. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 16:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable input. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Provide your interpretation

In view of the above discussion, it seems necessary to clarify what is the usefulness of the expressions primary source and secondary source in the policy. Below are the only three occurences of the expression "primary source" or "secondary source" in isolation in the policy, as recently modified by User:SlimVirgin. The significance of these two expressions relies entirely on these three occurences:

1. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed.
2. In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.
3. ... it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication ...

I claim that the two expressions "primary source" or "secondary source" have an unclear significance in the policy, unless we keep the sentence

• "That is, we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate."

which uses the expression secondary source in isolation. Please prove me wrong by explaining the significance of the expressions primary source and secondary source as expressed in the three above occurences of the expression "primary source" in isolation in the policy. Note that in the next section I argue that the sentence Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. can be replaced by Original research is not allowed. This means that only the last two phrases determine the usefulness of the expressions "primary sources" and "secondary sources". -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 04:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation

I understand that the policy distinguishes between (1) primary-source material and (2) generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data. I understand that primary-source material can be sourced in primary sources, but not generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data. The required sources for this other kind of material are by definition used as secondary sources, not as primary sources. In other words, this other kind of material is secondary-source material. I understand that we can cite a primary source such as an official trial transcript to include some primary-source material in the article, but we cannot provide any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of this material, that is, you cannot provide any secondary source material to discuss this primary source material, unless you provide a secondary source to support it. The problem is that such a secondary source material is necessary to see how the primary source material fits in the article. Therefore, you cannot have the primary source material without an associated secondary source material to provide the context.

If the connection with the article is implicit, it is the equivalent of an implicit interpretation of the primary source material, and this interpretation is secondary source material. For example, the use of such primary source material to create an insinuation is not allowed. An insinuation is very bad and against policy. For example, as a primary source-material, an official trial transcript says nothing bad about the defendant. For example, this transcript can be used as a criticism of a witness in the trial or of the trial itself in an article that is in support of the defendant. A reference to this transcript in the context of a criticism of the defendant corresponds to an implicit interpretation of this primary source material. Whatever is insinuated from a trial transcript or any other primary source material should be explicitly stated and sourced in a secondary source, or else the primary source material that creates the insinuation should be removed. The same is true for any implicit secondary source material, insinuation or not, that is normally created when a primary-source material is added in an article. Therefore, [the essential content of] the article normally reports what is already published in secondary sources. The exceptions are the articles with no significant implicit or explicit secondary source material such as the apple pie and the current events articles.

Aren't a number of articles on WP secondary sources? A lot of the ones about books or movies, for example, would seem to be based on editors making observations about the primary source, rather than using secondary sources. WP:RS states "A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source." However, it would seem WP could also be a secondary source according to that definition. Schizombie 07:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to know which are these articles that only report on primary sources. Could you please provide the wikilinks? They might be examples similar to the apple pie article, which would not be a contradiction. There is also the possibility that they are controversial articles that violates [my interpretation of] the policy. Obviously, there are plenty of articles that violate the policy, and the articles you have in mind could be some of these. Note that the sentence "Wikipedia is a tertiary source" entirely supports my point. However, my point also stands by itself using common sense and the definitions of primary sources and secondary sources, and this is much more important.

BTW, it is clear that a tertiary source can also provide links to primary sources. For example, it makes no sense to request that a review article, say on molecular surface, cannot give a reference to some original pictures or any other form of primary sources that are important ingredients in the secondary sources that are reviewed. Certainly, primary-source material remain interesting and can be cited in a tertiary source. This is not at all in contradiction with the fact that a tertiary source reports on secondary sources. The logic is simple and easily understood. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 13:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Like I wrote above, I think many movie and book pages (certainly most of the stubs). I'm not thinking of controversial pages, they may have just author/director info, brief plot summary, and no secondary sources are really required for that. The longer the article gets, the more likely it will get into analysis or awards and so on, and then secondary sources may enter. Yes, I guess the two points of the so-called "apple pie exception" describes these well. Whether such pages would be well-described as tertiary sources, I doubt. Schizombie 19:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess they are not tertiary sources, but they are considered exceptions in the policy. I do not suggest that we delete these articles. The worst case scenario will be to look harder to find secondary sources when the analysis or evaluative part starts to become more important. I think we are in agreement. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 19:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to continue, there are movies and books that are highly controversial. I understand that, as you clearly pointed out, they are not the pages that you are thinking about. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Simplification: removing primary and/or secondary

Let us consider the following paragraph.

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

IMO, the part "primary and/or secondary" in "primary and/or secondary sources" is uneccessary. It is important to go directly to the point and remove any uneccessary expressions such as "primary and/or secondary" whenever possible. If anyone see a real purpose to "primary and/or secondary" in the above, let me know what it is. Otherwise, I propose to remove it. We obtain:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Moreover, IMO, the first sentence

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed.

is implied by the simpler statement

Original research is not allowed.

Some original research creates primary sources, but original research may also create secondary sources. Any original research is not allowed. It cannot be wrong to replace a statement by another one that contains all the information that is provided in the original statement. Therefore, I suggest the followoing:

Original research is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

If there is a any difference (in terms of what is allowed or not allowed by the policy) between this paragraph and the original paragraph, let me know what it is. Otherwise, I propose that we use the last version instead of the original version that contains uneccessary expressions.

Note that the proposed paragraph has nothing to do with primary and secondary sources. Moreover, it would fit very well at the beginning of the section "What is original research?" We obtain:

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Original research is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

In this way, the purpose of the second paragraph is to clarify that, even though new interpretation, analysis, etc. is not allowed, it is fine to collect and organize information from existing sources. Looks good to me. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 04:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Harald88 18:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and because it is a modification at the presentation level that does not change at all the meaning of the policy, I will implement it. Of course, whoever thinks that we have missed something, can discuss it here. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 19:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Authority is not a concept in the no original research policy.

Consider the paragrah:

In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view.

I have no idea what is the purpose of the terms "authority" and authorities in this paragraph. They suddenly appear out of nowhere and they are not mentioned anywhere else in the policy. Perhaps the objective was to refer to the authority of the adherents to a view. It is indeed important to consider how prominent (and authoritative) are the adherents to a view, but this is a part of the Neutral point of view policy, not of the no original research policy. To keep the focus on the no original research policy, I propose to remove "authority or" and "authorites or". We obtain:

In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view.

Any objection? -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I categorically object to every suggestion Étincelle/Lumiere has made, and indeed will make in the future, unless I specifically state I endorse. I cannot waste my time opposing every specious suggestion made by this individual because of his phrasing, which implies if there is not a specific oppose voiced it denotes consent. Silence denotes opposition insofar as my position. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There has been trolling on this talk page, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and, I believe, the NPOV page for weeks. No idea what the point of it is. I revert the changes but otherwise don't respond. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Been there, done that, on all three pages. Merely wanted to put a "cover-all-bases" statement so that when I revert, he cannot claim that I "didn't say anything when it was suggested on talk!" because the statement above makes that meaningless. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Must say I endorse KC's position as well. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I endorse KC's position as well, on this and all other policy pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem? Someone understand what is going on? Is it that I am not a member of the gang or something like that. Should I pass some kind of initiation or test to be part of the gang? I know it is not because I am only a three months old editor because some people have been editors for very long and have met the same problem as me as soon as they tried to improve the policy in an intelligent way. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't be mistaken. This edit is not a reversal of position. Perhaps that he was just afraid that I could accuse him of obvious personal attacks, but the essential attitude did not change. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Provide your interpretation

In view of the above discussion, it seems necessary to clarify what is the usefulness of the expressions primary source and secondary source in the policy. Below are the only three occurences of the expression "primary source" or "secondary source" in isolation in the policy, as recently modified by User:SlimVirgin. The significance of these two expressions relies entirely on these three occurences:

1. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed.
2. In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.
3. ... it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication ...

I claim that the two expressions "primary source" or "secondary source" have an unclear significance in the policy, unless we keep the sentence

• "That is, we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate."

which uses the expression secondary source in isolation. Please prove me wrong by explaining the significance of the expressions primary source and secondary source as expressed in the three above occurences of the expression "primary source" in isolation in the policy. Note that in the previous sections I argue that the sentence Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. can be replaced by Original research is not allowed. This means that only the last two phrases determine the usefulness of the expressions "primary sources" and "secondary sources". -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 04:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation

I understand that the policy distinguishes between (1) primary-source material and (2) generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data. I understand that primary-source material can be sourced in primary sources, but not generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data. The required sources for this other kind of material are by definition used as secondary sources, not as primary sources. In other words, this other kind of material is secondary-source material. I understand that we can cite a primary source such as an official trial transcript to include some primary-source material in the article, but we cannot provide any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of this material, that is, you cannot provide any secondary source material to discuss this primary source material, unless you provide a secondary source to support it. The problem is that such a secondary source material is necessary to see how the primary source material fits in the article. Therefore, you cannot have the primary source material without an associated secondary source material to provide the context.

If the connection with the article is implicit, it is the equivalent of an implicit interpretation of the primary source material, and this interpretation is secondary source material. For example, the use of such primary source material to create an insinuation is not allowed. An insinuation is very bad and against policy. For example, as a primary source-material, an official trial transcript says nothing bad about the defendant. For example, this transcript can be used as a criticism of a witness in the trial or of the trial itself in an article that is in support of the defendant. A reference to this transcript in the context of a criticism of the defendant corresponds to an implicit interpretation of this primary source material. Whatever is insinuated from a trial transcript or any other primary source material should be explicitly stated and sourced in a secondary source, or else the primary source material that creates the insinuation should be removed. The same is true for any implicit secondary source material, insinuation or not, that is normally created when a primary-source material is added in an article. Therefore, [the essential content of] the article normally reports what is already published in secondary sources. The exceptions are the articles with no significant implicit or explicit secondary source material such as the apple pie and the current events articles.

Aren't a number of articles on WP secondary sources? A lot of the ones about books or movies, for example, would seem to be based on editors making observations about the primary source, rather than using secondary sources. WP:RS states "A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source." However, it would seem WP could also be a secondary source according to that definition. Schizombie 07:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to know which are these articles that only report on primary sources. Could you please provide the wikilinks? They might be examples similar to the apple pie article, which would not be a contradiction. There is also the possibility that they are controversial articles that violates [my interpretation of] the policy. Obviously, there are plenty of articles that violate the policy, and the articles you have in mind could be some of these. Note that the sentence "Wikipedia is a tertiary source" entirely supports my point. However, my point also stands by itself using common sense and the definitions of primary sources and secondary sources, and this is much more important.

BTW, it is clear that a tertiary source can also provide links to primary sources. For example, it makes no sense to request that a review article, say on molecular surface, cannot give a reference to some original pictures or any other form of primary sources that are important ingredients in the secondary sources that are reviewed. Certainly, primary-source material remain interesting and can be cited in a tertiary source. This is not at all in contradiction with the fact that a tertiary source reports on secondary sources. The logic is simple and easily understood. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 13:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Like I wrote above, I think many movie and book pages (certainly most of the stubs). I'm not thinking of controversial pages, they may have just author/director info, brief plot summary, and no secondary sources are really required for that. The longer the article gets, the more likely it will get into analysis or awards and so on, and then secondary sources may enter. Yes, I guess the two points of the so-called "apple pie exception" describes these well. Whether such pages would be well-described as tertiary sources, I doubt. Schizombie 19:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess they are not tertiary sources, but they are considered exceptions in the policy. I do not suggest that we delete these articles. The worst case scenario will be to look harder to find secondary sources when the analysis or evaluative part starts to become more important. I think we are in agreement. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 19:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to continue, there are movies and books that are highly controversial. I understand that, as you clearly pointed out, they are not the pages that you are thinking about. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on points in both edits. Schizombie 01:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

And my interpretation

Contrary to the above, in my experience nearly all original publications about certain subjects (which I assume to be "primary sources") contain, using the same phrasing as above, "analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data".

With that interpretation, "secondary sources" necessarily should mean "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation" of analysis and/or interpretation by such primary sources.

Simply put (but only as a rule-of-thumb), in my interpretation primary sources contain and/or provide the simple facts (data) as well as analysis and possible interpretation, while secondary sources contain alternative analysis, interpretation and viewpoints.

Consequently, as most(?) primary sources provide not only the bare data but also interpretation and context (this is certainly the case with mainstream science articles, as such is generally required for good papers), in many cases no or little such secondary sources are required, or even useful. Secondary sources are wirth mentioning in case of notable disputes and differences of opinion, which generally are discussed in secondary sources. Secondary sources require notability.

Because of the differnt possible interpretations of what is meant with "primary" and "secondary", and the obscure usefulness relating to this subject of NOR, I think that Lumiere's proposals to eliminate much of that jargon makes perfect sense.

BTW, it may be worth to include (cite) more of Jimbo's explanations. From reading his remarks I think that he was pretty clear about his motive for NOR as well as what he had in mind, and it appears that this is slowly being forgotten, with the risk that the potential quality of articles may be affected. Harald88 19:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Harald, I think your definition and my definition for primary/secondary sources are different. Variations on a definition of a term can be fine. However, the sender and the recipient must share the same definition. At this time, I do not want to debate which definitions should be adopted when we describe the policy. We can decide this later. Here, I just want, for the purpose of this discussion, clarify what definition I use. For me, a primary source, by definition, is a source that is not used for any analysis, interpretation, etc. that it may contain. The exception is when a source contains some analysis or interpretation, etc. that is used as information about the author of the source or about the source itself. The subtle difference is that in a primary source the accuracy or fairness of any interpretation or analysis, etc. that the source may contain is not important in itself. In fact, some secondary source can interpret the analytical or interpretative content of a primary source in one way, and another secondary source can interpret the same analytical or interpretative content of this source in a completely different way. In other words, by definition, no value whatsoever should be attached to the content of a source that is used as a primary source, even if this content seems like a well thought interpretation or analysis. By definition, we have to rely on a secondary source to attach a value to such a content. Again, this is just my definition. If we adopt this definition, then original publications about certain subjects are not usually used as primary source. Indeed, as you say, these original publications are most of the time used for their analytical, evaluative, synthetical, etc. content. This is why, in accordance with my definition, they are not normally used as primary sources. Of course, as is often pointed out in the literature, these original publications can be used as primary sources. This is not at all in contradiction with my definition. In accordance with my definition, if some secondary source uses an original publication as a primary source, it means that the secondary source took a viewpoint on this original publication, which viewpoint may not respect at all the original intention of the primary source. This is not the normal way to use an original publication in science. The normal way to use an original publication in science is to respect its original analytical, interpretative, etc. content. If we adopt my defintion of primary/secondary source, this means that we normally use an original publication as a secondary source, but it can sometimes be used as a primary source.

That's also fine with me - If I understand well, you take "primary source" to mean "raw data". Such hardly exists, in itself, in scientific publications; then nearly all acceptable scientific publications are secondary sources, with a number of them also primary sources. Harald88 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Having (I hope) clearly explained what is my definition, let me explain why I think it is useful. With this definition, the two expressions "used as a primary source" and "used as a secondary source" have two clearly distinct meanings. Consider an alternative definition where original publications are normally used as primary sources. We know that original publications are normally used for their analytical content in the same way as are used secondary sources. In particular, it is not true that we trust more the analytical content of original publications than we trust the analytical content of other publications that report on these original publications: it depends upon who are the respective authors.

Hmm, not according to Wikipedia policy: it depends on the status of the respective publishers; and, of course, on the development of argumentation (an article that takes more info into account, is often taken as more authorative; but I don't know if that has been pointed out somewhere). Harald88 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, with this alternative definition, the distinction between "used as primary source" and "used as secondary source" is not clear. Moreover, my definition is consistent with the expresssion "personal websites should never be used as secondary sources". In accordance with my definition, this means that a personal website cannot be used for its interpretative or evaluative content about some external topic, but can only be used as a testimony of what the author of the website wrote or as information about the website itself. In other words, it can only be used as information about the author of the website or about the website itself. This is exactly what the policy explains. Therefore, my definition is perfectly in accord with the use of the expression "used as a primary source" in the policy. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it better for good understanding, to simply remove all such jargon from policies, and replace it with clear terms such as "raw data" and "analysis"? Harald88 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My brain hurts. Coyoty 15:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)