Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:50, 10 September 2006

• ]

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Stvilia, B. et al. Information Quality Discussions in Misplaced Pages. University of Illinois U-C.

Template:Trollwarning

Archives

The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.

Expert editors

This is a continuation of the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:No original research/archive9#Editors citing themselves.

As a practical matter, the proposed rule change (which has been frozen in its changed form) recommends that every expert citing his own published work should check with the "People's Vanity Commissar" before doing so. This change is very much against the long-term wikipedia tradition and will seriously discourage experts from contributing. I favor the old guideline, which reads:

No, it does not. I defiy you to find the passage in the policy which insists that an expert citing his (or her) own published work "check with the "People's Vanity Commissar" before doing so." The current wording is simply a caution and a suggestion, there is NO prohibition, moreover the vanity guidelines are pretty vague and general too. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry for the obvious hyperbolie. The issue is not the guidelines, it is the potential abuse of the guidelines. I was the victim of an admin asserting the vanity guidelines against me because I had cited my own publications. This was in order to justify his deleting or reverting all my postings elsewhere on Wiki, apparently for crossing him. Difficult to beleive and totally against the rules, but it happened. He stopped when I cited the present rule allowing me to do this. His next step was to come over here and propose the rule be changed. Pproctor 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think we need to tread carefully here, that is all. There really should be no obstacle to experts adding citations to their own research when appropriate. I agree fully on this. However, there really have been abuses of the wiki nature of the project and vanity projects is an issue. I think we need to say something about it, and I think it needs to be short and clear. Perhaps the wording can be improved. I think the key is to keep it short and sweet: all appropriate sources should be cited, even if written by a wikipedia contributor. Expert contributors however should not however abuse the openness of Misplaced Pages, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or coopting existing articles to promote their own career and works. Isn´t this fair? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The traditional guideline listed below makes this essentially impossible. First, any citations of ones own work must be completely at arms length and subject to all the usual restrictions. So any "vanity" effects would be minor, at best. A legal maxim goes "The law does not concern itself with trivialities", except on Misplaced Pages, naturally.

Further, in the real world, the anonymity of Misplaced Pages makes this rule doubly impossible to enforce, except if some expert is dumb enough (as I was) to reveal his true identity. It is also against a fundamental policy to demand a person on Misplaced Pages to ID themthelves. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is nobody here that this rule would have the slightest effect on, except myself. I welcome further examples. Furtherance of personal feuds in not a very good reason for changing a basic Misplaced Pages guideline in a way that will only further discourage participation of those "skilled in the art". Pproctor 13:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• == Expert editors ==

- "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages. On the contrary, Misplaced Pages welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Misplaced Pages. If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Misplaced Pages can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy.

What does eveyone else think? Pproctor 23:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I think we should probably tackle one can'o'worms at a time. Jon Awbrey 01:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For comparison, the proposed change is to add the sentence: "However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes." I don't agree with Pproctor's characterization of the change, but nevertheless I think the suggestion that experts take the matter to the talk page is too strong. I suggest something like rewording it to "… it may be better in some cases to suggest …", or "Editors should refrain from adding references to their own publications if this is disputed, and argue their case on the talk page instead." -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that something would be helpful along those lines, primarily to ensure that what's being added really is relevant, as well as carefully written and cited. SlimVirgin 05:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The problems with changing the existing WS:NPOV policy are manifold. First, technical experts are not going to follow the changed guideline, should it go thru. Nor, with anonymous postings, etc. do they need too. That is, this change in the guidelines makes Misplaced Pages even more uninviting to the very people it needs (on technical issues anyway), without having much practical effect.

"Elitist"? There is an occasional need for technical expertise--I sure want a neurosurgeon to do my brain surgery. Second, even if experts were willing to vet their research publications with the vanity police, how is anyone to judge? Not even another person with the same expertise could make this kind of judgement about ideological purity. This is opening a can of worms. Remember, the guidelines are just that, guidelines.

Further, this change allows a lowest-common-denominator veto on a very subjective issue. Larry Sanger warned about this and how it damages the credibility of Misplaced Pages.

Technical experts put up with a lot here as it is. Having one's judgement questioned by anonymous strangers can be an interesting exercise, having one's motives questioned is quite another matter. One reason for the extreme variation in the quality of Misplaced Pages entries is that experts go where they are welcome and sheer away where they are not. Pproctor 17:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

One's motives are usually identifiable from one's behaviour. If one writes articles about all of one's coworkers, citing papers jointly written with them, but fails to contribute anything else, then that is suspect. If one further goes on to violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and insists that one deserves a Nobel Prize, WP:AGF is stretched to say the least. When one adds WP:SPAM to advertise one's baldness treatments...

Herein lies the problem; policy should be worded so that it is (1) not contradictory and so that (2) trolls cannot WP:LAWYER them. — Dunc|☺ 14:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is true that I have posted biographies of a couple of my mentors and coauthors on some decades-old papers, mostly done when I was a grad student or post-doc. E.g., one John McGinness is credited in a recent definitive history of the field (which I directly quote) with inventing the first organic electronic device, among other things. More recent examples include the color display in your phone. If that is not "notable", then nothing is. Yet Dunc in his malace and/or zeal put a delete petition on it.

I am currently a physician in private practice. I do not understand how posting a biography of the person who essentially invented the "plastic transistor" benefits me in any way, just because I am coauthor on some old papers with him from when I was a grad student. The original developer of the PC is now also a private physician-- would it also be "vanity" for him to post a biography of his computor geek buddies from the 1970's? That was then, this is now.

Similarly, it was attempting to post to the bio page of a more casual aquaintance from the '70's Raymond Damadian that got me into this tussle with Dunc. What I saw and heard from Dr. Damadian did not exactly correspond to Dunc's ideas. BTW, I before I get a WP:NOR cite, there is a limited license to use personal communications from the subject of a bio, which this was. I suppose Dunc will also now try to get this guideline changed. Pproctor 16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may continue Dunc's statement, … and so that (3) the policy does not have a chilling effect on worthwhile contributions. --Gerry Ashton 14:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pproctor, I know quite a number of expert (in the Misplaced Pages sense) editors in maths and physics, some of whom go by their real name, including myself. In my experience, they all understand that citing their own work will be viewed with suspicion. In my opinion, the extra sentence merely conveys that practice. Most experts are naturally reluctant to cite their own work and vanity guidelines are not necessary for them, but (again from my own experience) the extra scrutiny is unfortunately needed in some cases (this is not meant as a comment on your conflict with Dunc, which I haven't looked into). I don't know what prompted your comments of "elitism" or a "lowest-common-denominator veto".

The old issue. Who shall guard the guardians? You all are lucky you did not cross someone like Dunc. I edited on Wiki for years, without problems. I revealed my name, as do many. I also made the horrible mistake of tussling on a controversial issue with Dunc, who continually expresses his strong "antielitist" prejudices and who shows no particular tendency to adhere to the posted guidelines, even after an admonition. Such have have and will misuse this rule to pursue their own adjendas. Misplaced Pages is not antielitist, it is neutral, as the rules should be.

To summararize the situation again, after I abandoned the field and fled, Dunc vindicatively continued a dispute on one page Raymond Damadian by systematically deleting my postings on other pages. This was under the excuse that citing my own work, published in major journals, was a violation of the vanity guidelines. I had done this in good faith under the present rule, which Dunc now attempts to change. BTW, even had my posting not been "legal", the way he did this (no discussion on talk pages, etc.) is totally against the guidelines. The problem is, when you micromanage this way, you open the door to more stuff like this. This is because the issue, "vanity", is so totally subjective. And with out any possible gain, since the Misplaced Pages rules guarantee anonymity. Pproctor 15:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, as I said before, I'm not happy with the sentence you added:

"However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes."

What do you think about

"However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better in some cases for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes."

or

"However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind. Editors should refrain from adding references to their own publications if this is disputed, and argue their case on the talk page instead."

Same question for you, Slrubenstein. Of course, anybody is most welcome to propose other formulations.

PS added after I got an edit conflict with Gerry: Of course, and I consider some parts of the vanity guidelines as rather bad in this respect. But they do exist, they are obviously related to this section of WP:NOR, which makes it naturally to refer to them. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Like Jitse Niesen I am a self-identified academic so this issue relates to me too. I have no problem at all with the current wording, except that, well, it is a little wordy. What I wrote above still represents my best attempt to state the issue concisely: "all appropriate sources should be cited, even if written by a wikipedia contributor. Expert contributors however should not abuse the openness of Misplaced Pages, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or coopting existing articles to promote their own career and works." I think either iof Jitse´s two alternative suggestions would follow nicely from the preceeding. Anyway, in general I support what Jitse wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How about:

Expert editors may find it difficult to judge whether citing their own work would lead to overemphais of one subtopic within the article, and should seek advise on the talk page if in doubt.

--Gerry Ashton 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I somehow missed that the text that Slrubenstein repeats just above here was meant as a proposed text for the policy page. I actually prefer that text above my proposal. I also agree that the current text is rather wordy. For instance, it says three times that contributions of experts should be verifiable. So, perhaps we should use the occasion to cut down on words. Therefore

I've no problems with Gerry's text, and I'm quite happy to have it instead of the last line in my proposed text, but what I like about Slrubenstein's text is that it gives a fair warning about the "vanity police". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest one more addition, which the above tacitly assumes, but should be restated, so there is no question. This is that:

• "The standard of proof shall be clear and convincing evidence. Editors disputing expert contributions must also adhere to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:vandalism,Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources, Misplaced Pages:Neutral Point of View, Misplaced Pages:No original research,WK:AGF, and all other guidelines."

Pproctor 23:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the phrase "clear and convincing evidence" does not appear anywhere in any of the policies or guidelines mentioned by Pproctor. Adding a new standard for inclusion or removal (I'm not sure which Pproctor had in mind) that only applies to contributions from expert editors would be unwise. --Gerry Ashton 23:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Vanity" is completely subjective, undefined and open to abuse. If it can be abused (say) to bully an expert, it will be and (in violation of the present rule) has been. So it is reasonable that some standard be set. Clear and convincing is a reasonable one, but ths is naturally open for suggestions. OTOH, WP:NPOV etc. (as in the present rule) can be more easily established by (e.g) countercites. Pproctor 21:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: By way of cutting to the crux of the above discussion, I think that a couple of definitions might pave the way:

1. Elitist. Someone who has spent a couple of decades in the study of a given subject, and is so arrogant or deluded as to think that counts for a hill'o'beans in WP.
2. Expert. Someone who has spent a couple of years hanging about WP and uses administrative privileges as a tactical nucular ex cathedra dictum to push a personally favored POV.

JA: I hope that clears a few things up. Jon Awbrey 01:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Moral? Don't Be A Dictum. Jon Awbrey 01:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal: In place of "expert editors", we should title the section "Pointy headed-intellectual editors". Pproctor 02:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It does seem that the easy way around the proposed "vanity" restriction is for expert editors to post anonymously or not reveal their identities. Then then could freely post their own properly-cited work without being harassed by cerain editors. If they go on "to violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and insists that one deserves a Nobel Prize", as Dunc suggests, ther editors would edit those comments out as they would any another objetcionable post. Why would we want to make a rule that can so very easily be circumvented? Does anyone know who I am? Of course not. But then, I'm not an expert in anything, just some guy who likes to write about the few things that I do know about. I think that we should welcome those add properly cited published material -- which is sorely lacking on Misplaced Pages -- even if it is their own work. Ground Zero | t 10:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the eminently good sense of Ground Zero's comment. -- Donald Albury 12:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we still have any conflicts over this one section?

Here is the current section in the current version:

"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages. On the contrary, Misplaced Pages welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Misplaced Pages.

If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Misplaced Pages can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes.

What are the remaining objections to this text, and what are the suggsted alternatives? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: On the rule of 1COW@t₀ ("one can'o'worms at a time"), I haven't really looked at this section yet. My general take on questions like this is guardedly conservative (conservationist? conservatorial?) in the sense that we ought to start with SAPs (standards and practices) that are already present in the Real World, and carefully consider any temptation to deviate from that, as those SAPs are likely to be far more sapient than we might guess at first. Jon Awbrey 16:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Problem 1. "Knowledge" not verifiable here. On beginning my scan, the 1st problem I see is with the qualification: "as long as their knowledge is verifiable". This is far too broad. WP users cannot require that any Person's "knowledge" be verifiable. WP is prohibited by its founding policies from policing persons at all. WP users can only make efforts to verify statements that are added to pages. Jon Awbrey 16:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Solution: change to " as long as their knowledge is published in an already existing verifiable source." Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Solution2: change to " as long as their statements are published in an already existing verifiable source." Wjhonson 18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: The problems are (1) the word "their", whose antecedent is "persons", and (2) the word "knowledge". To put it idiomatically, WP has no truck with either. WP simply has no way to verify anything as real and big as "personal knowledge". WP policy can require of IP-sources of texts nothing more than the verifiability of statements in them, and WP editors can check nothing more than this. References to Person and Knowledge are out of bounds for WP policy. Jon Awbrey 17:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine me. I'm not finding the objections compelling or meaningful. FeloniousMonk 17:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• First, this is not the "current version" but a rather modified version of the long-term policy that was posted without discussion and then got frozen before anyone could change it back. Nice try, though. The Real "current version" reads:
  • == Expert editors ==
  • - "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages. On the contrary, Misplaced Pages welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Misplaced Pages. If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Misplaced Pages can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy."

• Similarly, why change a long-term policy guideline when it has works just fine. The initiator of the proposed change wants the change merely because the existing rule prevents him from harassing another editor in a personal feud. And yes, I originally "assumed good faith". Which is why I gave my real name and thus opened myself up to harassment from Dunc. Pproctor 18:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I didn't get the program for this one, so I can't really tell the home team from the visitors, nor do I care to know. But it should be clear that the case of "knowledge" is exactly parallel to the case of "truth", neither of which words are legit to use in these policies. Just as a practical matter, it would be a mistake for WP policy to let itself be entangled and paralyzed by the tricky wikits of epistemology and personal identity. Jon Awbrey 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe dealing adequately with Jon Awbrey's concerns will not change the meaning of the policy in the slightest, but will merely make it more clear by talking about what the policy is about (the content of Misplaced Pages) rather than other related things (whether the contributor is an expert or not, what is or is not his "knowledge") that have no need to be brought up (but were because of the context that created the original concerns). Jon Awbrey's concerns are not that of a troll seeking pointless changes but that of a philosopher and scholar who contributes to philosophy related articles, some of which require quotes from primary sources to clarify key points because secondary sources are out of date with regard to recently published papers or are lacking due to a lack of interest or other reasons. I also use primary sources in my H5N1 contributions. I prefer CIDRAP, CDC, and WHO but they don't always include details an encyclopedia should have; instead they sometimes concentrate on what a newspaper would cover. I have no intention of waiting for Britannica to cover it. WAS 4.250 22:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Why micromanage a WP:NOR policy guideline for "Expert editors" which works and which has generated no previous problems? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and "The Best is the Enemy of the Good". Pproctor 00:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Style problems: what Jon said ("their knowledge is verifiable" should be "their contributions is verifiable"), and what Slrubenstein said (it's repetitive in that it says three times that it should be verifiable). Point of order: What Pproctor said (A policy should not be changed as Dunc did without consensus, and it's not clear that there is a consensus here). Most importantly, the content. I don't agree with "it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes". Sure, that's better in some cases, but in other cases nobody is really watching the talk page and it's better to be bold and add references to yourself. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Occasionally reality intrudes. Look how many entries have nothing on the talk page or no talk page at all. Even on fairly busy talk pages, there may be months between posts.

If an "expert" overcites himself, that is best handled under WK:NPOV and not under "Vanity", which is too subjective. Similarly, unlike WK:NPOV and everythig else on Misplaced Pages, "vanity" can be argued just by assertion and is thus an anomaly. Also, "vanity" seems to be aimed at more extreme and clear cases of spamming. The best thing is to just simply restore the original guideline when the page gets unfrozen. Pproctor 04:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of moving forward, I proposed an alternative text in my 26 Aug edit in #Expert editors, which addresses all my concerns and, in my opinion, does not change the policy. However, it's a fairly big change for such a well-established policy and it hasn't received much support, so I suppose it's not going to happen. Hence, what I intend to do is to revert the Expert editors section (and that section alone) to the status quo ante, which I take to be 20:45, 18 Aug. That revision has stood for a couple of months, it seems. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed alternative wording for Citing oneself section

A number of people have made reasonable objections to the current wording in the Citing oneself oneself section. For the record, I strongly prefer the version that Jitse Niesen proposed above. To repeat it here (with a couple of punctuation corrections, and one parenthetical clarification):

"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages. On the contrary, Misplaced Pages welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions are verifiable (not based on unpublished work). All sources which are appropriate in view of Misplaced Pages's policies (like Reliable sources and Neutral point of view) should be cited, even if written by a Misplaced Pages contributor. Expert contributors, however, should not abuse the openness of Misplaced Pages, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or co-opting existing articles to promote their own career and works.

This sounds the appropriate notes of caution while not going overboard (and I think that recommending self-citations to go in Talk is overboard), and does not substantively change the policy. As an added benefit, it is shorter. Do others agree? —Steven G. Johnson 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. WAS 4.250 06:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Uniquely for Misplaced Pages, the "vanity" guidelines are entirely subjective and open-ended. "I know it when I see it". NPOV and NOR at least require something besides "Personal Opinion", which is otherwise anathema on Misplaced Pages as "original research". Hopefully, you-all can see the paradox. Further, nobody seems to have come up with a single instance where the present rule has not proved adequate. Just restore it. "The best is the enemy of the good". Pproctor 14:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with reverting to the version before the "self-citations in talk" recommendation was added, either. Do you agree that both the old wording, and the above suggestion, are better than the present wording? —Steven G. Johnson 16:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this. You absolutely need to cross-reference WP:VAIN, and the suggestion of taking it to talk should also be made, though I can understand making it as a suggestion rather than a requirement. — Dunc|☺ 14:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to WP:VAIN; that's an easy fix. As several people have pointed out, a general recommendation that self-citations go into Talk is impractical, imposes a pointless burden on expert editors who choose to contribute under their real names, and is completely ignored in practice. I'm curious to see how many other editors agree with you that such a suggestion is useful. —Steven G. Johnson 16:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a very common failing for authorities to attack sins by attacking things associated with them. But this is wrong. It is 'guilt by association.' Misplaced Pages's founder, for all his and its good qualities, has made the same mistake with the NOR policy, and the rest of you are merely led. --londheart 16:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you are talking about. Can you please stay on-topic? —Steven G. Johnson

You really seem to sound as tho you see no connection. All I can prescribe is rest, contemplation, and coming back to it when you are in a more appropriate frame of mind. --londheart 19:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

On where to state self-reference, I disagree. I think wikiquette requires it (though others may disagree), especially in marginal cases. Also I think self-citation is so rare that any restriction on it would have little practical effect. Rules should be made so that trolls can't wikilawyer with them, so giving them a completely free hand to self-cite is IMHO a recipe for trouble. Don't make the "go to talk" cast-iron policy (as it is unworkable), but make it atleast a mild suggestion, and particularly if the citation is opposed. It probably needs to cross-reference WP:RS as well, as someone's paper in Science may be more notable than an essay on their website. — Dunc|☺ 17:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Any opposed citation will obviously be discussed in talk, just like every other controversial change to an article. We don't need a special rule for this. And self citation is almost inevitable for any expert writing extensively on topics in his/her own field of expertise, which presumably we want to encourage. As for wikilawyering, that cuts both ways; as someone pointed out above, the current wording encourages trolls to go around deleting the contributions of experts writing about their own fields, without forcing them to justify themselves with specific objections. Ultimately, I've dealt with plenty of trolls, and there is no wording of the policy that they will not abuse—Misplaced Pages policies depend on interpretation by reasonable editors who can outweigh the trolls. The problem with the current wording is that it actively discourages expert contributions, not trolls. —Steven G. Johnson 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's proposal

"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages. It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Misplaced Pages welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Misplaced Pages can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. We further hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. While specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Misplaced Pages, they are often familiar with and have access to a wider range of verifiable sources and can thus be of special assistance in verifying or citing sources. Expert contributors, however, should not abuse the openness of Misplaced Pages, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or co-opting existing articles to promote their own career and works (please consult Misplaced Pages:Vanity guidelines).

For what it is worth Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This looks good to me. It might be worth pointing out that experts in a field will find it easier to find references to verify their contributions, and in fact they should use this knowledge of the literature to add references to their content. I've been able to find references about some of the areas I know about that would have been very difficult for a layman to find, but once there, are very easy for a layman to verify. Stephen B Streater 20:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, too. (I don't think we need to point out that experts have an easier time finding references for established facts. Anyone who is an expert already knows this.) Shouldn't e.g. published be i.e. published? —Steven G. Johnson 21:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I made an edit to the paragraph above incorporating, in my fashion, Stephen B Streater´s suggestion. I propose that we wait for two or three more editors to comment and if everyone agrees (or agrees after further friendly ammendments) I can incorporate the change. Let´s give it a day to see what if any objections there are, okay? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor nit: moreover should be however. —Steven G. Johnson

I urge keeping the present guideline. Why change when there is not a problem? Uniquely on Misplaced Pages, asertions of "vanity" can based purely on subjective "personal opinion". That is, they often fail the "No original Research" or "Neutral point of view" guidelines. So they can and will be easily abused-- I will not bore you again with my expereince. But, did I not have several years investment here, I would have left Wiki to Larry Sangors "Trolls and Fools".

As Sanger notes: "A few of the project's participants can be, not to put a nice word on it, pretty nasty. And this is tolerated. So, for any person who can and wants to work politely with well-meaning, rational, reasonably well-informed people--which is to say, to be sure, most people working on Misplaced Pages--the constant fighting can be so off-putting as to drive them away from the project. This explains why I am gone; it also explains why many others, including some extremely knowledgeable and helpful people, have left the project."

This is particularly the case where experts quite reasonably treat a Wiki entry as they would a review article and an editor (er) not "skilled in the art" votes his personal POV. While there is all this talk about "antielitism", I see numerous Misplaced Pages technical articles that were clearly written by people with considerable expertese and which would be absolute crap otherwise, as colorably, might be the whole project. E.g., how much does the average editor know about myocardial infarction or toxicology?

Though the usual suspects will accuse me of elitism for saying this, this is Misplaced Pages's dirty little secret-- in exchange for having to deal with the occasional troll and being called, as I have, a "fool" and "moron", we experts get to have a free interchange of ideas with each other. Minimize the opportunities for such trolling, and you might get more of us to stick around.

The best thing is to leave "vanity" out. NPOV, NOR, etc. suffice, as long as the Expert quotes his work at arm's length, just like in a review article. This is the present Misplaced Pages guideline and I have yet to see anyone point out a single case where it has caused problems. Pproctor 23:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish you wouldn't say "the present guideline" when you really are apparently referring to a previous version of the NOR guideline; please be clear what version you are referring to. —Steven G. Johnson 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, in an attempt to be succinct, are you suggesting youwould support my version if I deleted the last sentence? What do others involved think? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the below? (everything is from Slrubenstein except the last sentence is condensed.) WAS 4.250 01:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages. It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Misplaced Pages welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Misplaced Pages can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. We further hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. While specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Misplaced Pages, they are often familiar with and have access to a wider range of verifiable sources and can thus be of special assistance in verifying or citing sources. See also Misplaced Pages:Vanity guidelines.

Looks good to me. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Me too. SlimVirgin 06:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Indentation is really messed up below, and I want to be clear about which version I'm referring to, so I'm putting this comment here. I don't think the last sentence is necessary, but the version is fine otherwise, and I won't let my quibble stand in the way of reaching a good consensus on this. So, to be clear, Support. -- Donald Albury 12:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Take out the last sentence and I will go along. Also, the guidelines for Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons allow limited use of personal information passed along by the subject of the biography to the editor. After "unverifiable" in the second sentence, I suggest placing "except as specified in Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons" or "except as specified elsewhere in the guidelines". This is to make these guidelines consistent. Pproctor 02:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The biographies page allows using "information supplied by the subject" only "if it is verifiable"; I don't see anywhere where it creates an exception to the verifiability policy, as you seem to be implying. —Steven G. Johnson 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Both Steven G. Johnson's and Slrubenstein's version are fine with me. I think the last sentence should be retained (I don't like the condensed form that WAS 4.250 proposed because the sentence "See also Misplaced Pages:Vanity guidelines" does not relate clearly to the rest). Regarding the vanity guideline: yes, it's not as fundamental as NPOV and Verifiability, and that's why it's a guideline and not a policy (see Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines for the difference). The guideline itself makes this clear when it says that vanity is not in itself a reason for deletion. But the bottom line for me is that the guideline exists and is relevant in this section, so it should be mentioned. If you think something is wrong with the guideline, get it changed or even rejected, but don't try to hide it.

Where in Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons does it say that unverifiable information is allowed? I can only find

"Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if it meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies, …"

which says exactly the opposite. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: That last bit about vanity is insulting in the extreme and has to go. Folks who already know the rules of research writing that apply in the real world don't need lectures about this stuff from people who write under funny pseudo nyms and . Jon Awbrey 05:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

With regard to BLP, it appears to me that some people have been trying to alter it to mean that the subject of a biography has say-so in the content of that biography beyond what was ever intended. BLP has never meant more than enhanced awareness (sensitivity) of the rights of the subject including moral and legal privacy rights and stern application of verifyability, NPOV, and no original research. It has never included the right to delete negative sourced relevant information. (Unbiased presentation is desireable, of course.) WAS 4.250 06:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the vanity bit, I can accept any of the above suggestions; although I can appreciate Jon's colorful way of expressing the distaste of an expert for the rambling assertions of the hoi polloi. WAS 4.250 06:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's what I would have thought before, but my experience here (with the Carl Hewitt case for which I collected some evidence as an extreme example) led me to believe that it is necessary to add a remark. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: The use of the word "vanity" here is simply inappropriate for reasons too numerous to mention, so I suppose I will have to:

1. It is not the term that is used in the real world for rules about self-citation.
2. A journal either allows self-citation or it does not.
3. Journals that do not allow it are not insinuating that an author's own work on a subject is somehow to be compared with the publications of a so-called "vanity press". That is simply not the issue.
4. Use of the pejorative term "vanity" for a self-citation invokes a presumption of bad faith that is simply alienating and insulting to potential contributors.
5. The thing that creates the extra problem here is Misplaced Pages's peculiar policy of allowing submissions under possibly multiple pseudonyms — the kinds of pseudonyms to which no reputation accrues and thus no responsibility attaches, as it would with even the normal sort of nom de plume in the real world. It is not just and proper for Misplaced Pages to be harassing the innocent with problems that its own policies created.

JA: I will probably think of a few more reasons after coffee. Jon Awbrey 12:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The WP:VAIN link is a bit pointed but there is no doubt in my mind that there should be a storng presumption against citing one's own research, or that of one's close collaborators. This problem is reduced when the research is published and discussed in a major journal; a contentious theory published in Nature will have plenty of feedback to help non-experts assess its merit. Citing PhD theses is a very poor idea, we've learned that from the Bogdanov business. I would say that publication in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, or in a standard text used by students in the field, should be the expected standard for cited references. Just zis Guy you know? 15:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Guy wants Misplaced Pages to be actively hostile to expert editors. I consider his passage to be an insult to experts. --Gerry Ashton 15:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how you get this reading from what Guy just wrote. It seems respectful and professional to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. The problem is that some editors do not like their POV challenged by some pointy-headed "Expert". The obvious solution is to drive off such experts to get a clear field. Note Larry Sellors comments above.

It seems like we are nearing a consensus. I find Jon Awbrey´s comments useless and inconsequential though. (1) he writes, "Folks who already know the rules of research writing that apply in the real world don't need lectures" which is silly as anyone can edit wikipedia, there are no entry requirements, and many editors do not know the rules of research rwriting - JA consistently thinks this policy is being written for him when in fact it is being written for a large and heterogeneous groups. (2) as others have pointed out, we have had problems with vanity pages and have every reason to think we will in the future, so there is no harm and some good in explicitly discouraging them. (3) JA thinks expert writers will take offense. As an expert writer let me say, "no, only insecure expert writers will take offense." Misplaced Pages is full of expert writers none of whom have complained about this and I doubt they ever will. (4) JA thinks this is a journal. It is not. It is sui generis. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

True, most experts don't complain. The only reason I personally complained is because (a certain party) got cross-wise with me on one page, found out my ID and then proceeded to delete my postings on other pages in revenge. His excuse was that citing my own published works is "vanity". The only thing that stopped him was when I cited the existing rule to him. Which rule, he proceeded to try to change unilaterally. Which is why we are having this discussion. You cannot give trollers like him the ability to abuse the system. Pproctor 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your version looks good to me, Slrubenstein. Jayjg 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasy going to say the same thing. I publish in "real" journals, and it's hard to imagine taking offense at Slrubenstein's version. True, a professional should not need to be told this, but neither would he/she mind seeing codification of rules he/she already accepts. (BTW, I've never heard of a journal that doesn't allow self-citation; it's hard to even imagine such a thing.) It doesn't impose any additional procedural hurdles for expert contribution, unlike the present NOR page. Moreover, it's useful not only to deal with egregious cases (there are a few unprofessional jerks who manage to publish), but also to let non-professional editors know what to hope for and expect when dealing with experts. —Steven G. Johnson 16:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have readily agreed, But then I got racked over the coals on "vanity' as part of one editors sick revenge. There are many such on Misplaced Pages. If you give the likes of him the ability to use "Vanity", they will use it. A true vanity piece can be readily handled under (especially) NOPV and NOR. Pproctor 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The question is, do we have a stable enough agreement here (and concerning primary/secondary source) to unblock the policy page? An alternative is to unblock it only to admins for the purpose of making this one change. I of course can´t do that. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only no, but hell no. Not as long as there is any reference to the vanity guideline. Again, quoting wikipedia-cofounder Larry Sanger

• "A few of the project's participants can be, not to put a nice word on it, pretty nasty. And this is tolerated. So, for any person who can and wants to work politely with well-meaning, rational, reasonably well-informed people--which is to say, to be sure, most people working on Misplaced Pages--the constant fighting can be so off-putting as to drive them away from the project. This explains why I am gone; it also explains why many others, including some extremely knowledgeable and helpful people, have left the project." Pproctor 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for Getting Back on Track

JA: I suggest that we return the main page to a its truly long-standing formulation of August 1st 2006, and start over from there. I suggest that the people who have been wasting all of our times for the last couple of weeks with their highly contentious and non-consensual alterations of long-standing WP:NOR policy cease and desist from continuing their hijacking and lockdown of the page. Jon Awbrey 16:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We are on track - you keep disrupting a collegial and productive discussion in order to go off-track.

This is not a "collegal and productive discussion". I have spent most of my adult life having those and I know the difference. It is why they pay me the big bucks. This is simply an effort to railroad thru against opposition a change in a long-established Wiki rule that worked just fine until I evolked it against an abuser of the system. This editor (who has been chastized before for abuses) then inititiated this rule change. If you are going make such aa change, you must produce some reason other than maintaining ideological purity. Pproctor 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a version of the paragraph in question:

"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages. It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Misplaced Pages welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Misplaced Pages can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. We further hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. While specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Misplaced Pages, they are often familiar with and have access to a wider range of verifiable sources and can thus be of special assistance in verifying or citing sources. See also Misplaced Pages:Vanity guidelines.

It is based on a version I proposed, and has been changed to reflect comments by Stephen B Streater, Steven G. Johnson, and WAS 4.250 (this is what we at Misplaced Pages call a collaborative process) and it has the support of Jossi, Jitse Niesen, Slim Virgin, and Jayjg. Now, this is what I call staying on track. Let´s make this as good as we can and put it in. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: The WP:NOR is intended to define Original Research and to explain why it is not permitted in WP. It achieved that purpose succinctly enough on or about the Winter Solstice of 2003. The lion's share of the ensuing bulk is simply superfluous and off-topic here, being the proper business of other policy and guideline pages. If an editor cites a prior publication that is published in a reputable form, then that is not original research, and is not the concern of this policy. WP rules do not even permit us to speculate on whether an editor working here under the name of Pseu-Pseu-Pseudio (any dissemblance to the name of an actual WPean is purely coincidental) really is the author of that secondary source that he-she seems to like citing so much. The relevance and reliability of citations have to be judged on their own merits alone. It is hardly fair to be picking on editors who have been kind enough to disclose their day jobs at the Daily Planet when there are so gol-darned many caped and hooded usual suspects runing amok all over the place. Now, go chase the Riddler or Cool Hand Lex or somebody (standard disclaimer of unintended tychenyms). Jon Awbrey 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jon, I read your comment above, and other comments of yours and fail to understand the purpose of it all. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: The objective is to end up with a policy on Original Research that is clear, that makes sense to talk about, and that can reasonably be required and fairly be enforced within the current framework of Misplaced Pages. That means avoiding all sorts of extraneous matters that are a waste of time to talk about because they cannot be dictated ethically nor enforced with fair and equal effectiveness on all participants in this project. Jon Awbrey 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

1. The lion's share of the ensuing bulk is simply superfluous and off-topic here, being the proper business of other policy and guideline pages. Most people don't read every policy. A little redundancy helps. A lot of people think the policies are too wordy, but we aren't going to solve that issue here and now. We have a specific subsection we are addressing and changing the subject or suggesting the subsection be deleted is not even close to something a majority will agree to.
2. WP rules do not even permit us No you are completlely misunderstanding the nature of Misplaced Pages. The rules are to assist our use of common sense and not prevent our use of common sense.
3. The relevance and reliability of citations have to be judged on their own merits alone. Not true at all. If a known troublemaker or troll or banned person adds something with a link to a source; a sensible reaction can be to delete it without bothering to read the material at the link. We are volunteers with only so much time and we are encouraged to make good judgements and not blindly follow rules.
4. It is hardly fair to be picking on editors who have been kind enough to disclose their day jobs So? We aren't fair. Tough. Life isn't fair. wikipedia does not exist to be fair. When not being fair helps to create a better freer encyclopedia then it is appropriate to not be fair.
5. enforced with fair and equal effectiveness No law is ever enforced totally fairly and equally. The question is it more helpful to have such and such wording or less helpful. WAS 4.250 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: It's a weekend, so this respondez-vous may take a couple of days.

1. A wise man once said, "Redundancy is the essence of information" — okay, it was me, so chute me for my vanity. BUT, and that's a really BIG BUT, trying to sneak in a major change of policy here, on this more tangential page, and then using the Ensuing Deformation as an excuse to "conform it" somewhere else, is an illegitimate way to proceed. Jon Awbrey 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You speak of "redundancy", while you miss that your long comments about this policy are becoming just that. I am no interested in such a conversation. WP:OR is serving us well as is. Small adjustments here and there are welcome. but a major re-write is out of the question for the simple reason that it is unlikely that it will happen. So, maybe it wold be better to go back and put our attention editing articles rather than discussing policy ad nauseum, shall we?. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: I suggest that you redirect your remarks to those editors who are trying to brute force impose a major rewrite of WP:NOR, because that ain't me. Jon Awbrey 13:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, how about this?

Two people object to a word which is only used to descibe a link, so why not use other words from that page to describe the link? How about this? (Only the label for the link is changed.)

"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages. It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Misplaced Pages welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Misplaced Pages can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. We further hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. While specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Misplaced Pages, they are often familiar with and have access to a wider range of verifiable sources and can thus be of special assistance in verifying or citing sources. See also Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest when citing oneself guideline.

-- WAS 4.250 19:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

WAS, either change the name of the Misplaced Pages page itself, or use its correct title here. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought I made clear that my suggestion here involves refering to a guideline by a phrase describing that guideline rather than refering to it by its title. Changing the actual title is an interesting idea but outside the scope of my suggestion. WAS 4.250 20:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling reason that we have to use the guideline's actual title, especially when its actual title is not very descriptive and sounds prejudical. -GTBacchus 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

WAS, you were being clear. So was I. I didn´t misunderstand you, I disagreed with you. The title does sound prejudicial which is a good reason to change it. But as long as that is the actual title of the guideline I think it is disingenuous to try to avoid controversy by masking its name. I think you are making a mistake to turn this into semantics. The trwo people who object - are you SURE they object just to the word "vanity?" If they do, tell them to go tço the Vanity page and argue to change the title, because that is where their criticisms belong. If they are not really concerned with the word but with the guidelines to which the word is attached, changing the name is not going to make a difference. Either way, this seemingly easy compromise is no sollution it just evades the issues. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not link to the guideline using what its title should be, and then go there and argue to change the name on the grounds that we're not even willing to link to it from WP:NOR with its current name? I mean, I guess I understand what you're saying about disingenuity, but that seems an odd point to hang up on. It seems to me that using a different link text pushes the conflict closer to actualizing, rather than avoiding it. -GTBacchus 20:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, do not get hung up on my objection. WAS was appealing to two specific people who objected to my revised version. If those two people agree to WAS´s version, and no oine else objects, hell, I am all for it. It is then just a matter of an admin changing the protection to allow for admin edits, and another admin to make the change. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't terribly mind WAS's version, except I would phrase it less awkwardly: See also Misplaced Pages's guidelines on conflicts of interest.

I do think Pproctor is barking up the wrong tree, however. If he/she objects to the vanity guideline, then this is the wrong Talk page to have that discussion on. Still, if a simple rewording allows us to move forward on this, I'm all for it. —Steven G. Johnson 20:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We agree that WK:NOR is the wrong place for a vanity guideline. In fact, this is precisely what I am objecting too. Best to simply restore the project page to what is was before or some functional equivalent. Pproctor 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and brought up the idea of a name change at Misplaced Pages talk:Vanity guidelines#Name of this guideline. -GTBacchus 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal implications

Just curious (and maybe this can be added to the policy page as additional rationale), but can the appearance of OR on Misplaced Pages also be considered legally dangerous? What I mean is Dr. X posts an unpublished theory on Wiki, Dr. Y who claims to have discovered the theory first get angry because Dr. X made the theory public before Dr. Y was able to publish his $100,000-contracted treatis, so Dr. Y sues Misplaced Pages. Or Dr. X posts a brand new formula for shoe polish on Wiki, someone decides to make said shoe polish, and ends up blowing himself up. Survivors sue Wiki. That sort of thing. That's actually the first rationale I thought of when I first heard of the NOR rule. Just a thought. 23skidoo 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think such things are covered by Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer. Deco 02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. General "bragging rights", may be important, but have no legal status, the only legal claims anyone has to intellectual proprety are in the patent, trademark, and copyright laws. ----

Pool Forge Covered Bridge and OR

I have an interesting problem regarding the usage of original research. The issue deals with the Pool Forge Covered Bridge. One source claims that the bridge is used for farm storage. Another source says that it is closed to motor traffic. The third source confirms that the bridge is on private property. Now, I was at the site of the bridge yesterday and took a number of photographs. During that time, numerous vehicles passed through the bridge, although it is indeed on private property (and thus closed to public traffic). Now it may have historically been used as a storage barn by a previous owner or in some other case, but this is not true now. Technically my work there is Original Research, although I have pictures to document that it is not used as a barn and the approaches are roadways. Now if someone was going to be hard-nosed about it, they would put in the old information EVEN THOUGH IT IS FALSE. Now obviously we allow uncited information, but in this case the easily "verifiable" information is wrong, and the "original research" (which *is* verifiable, just not published) is right. I think because I have pictures to prove the point, there will be no debate, but what is someone supposed to do in the case where there are no pictures? It seems sad if we accept incorrect information in the name of not allowing OR. Covered bridges in Lancaster County are historically significant and they are significant to tourism (i.e. notable), but there is very little published information about them, and information about things such as whether or not it is used as a barn or storage shed (like Red Run Covered Bridge) is unlikely to be mentioned or updated for many years (if ever!). — Ram-Man 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the only place to write or to publish photos. Perhaps you could write a short history of the bridge and get it published in the Sunday supplement of the local newspaper, or have it placed on the web site of the local tourism agency. Then the up-to-date story could be used in Misplaced Pages. --Gerry Ashton 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a rather large hoop to jump through in order to correct an inaccuracy; it just isn't possible for an average person to get an article published in a newspaper. If the original research policy demands this, then the policy is broken and should be fixed. Ken Arromdee 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Plus there is no guarantee that it could be published. Besides, whether or not I can publish it doesn't really change much. It's the same information, just in a newspaper, which already has questionable accuracy anyway. Is it really worth going through that hassle for every incorrect detail in a published source? Additionally, for someone to verify the point, they'd have to go on at least a 1.0 - 1.5 hour drive (round trip) to verify it. The point is that if it was totally uncited and/or removed and someone compared the article with one of the sources, they would be making the incorrect assumption that the source was correct. I've never really gotten involved in the NOR policy, but this issue has always bothered me. The problem is that I trust myself, sure, but if the situation was reversed and there were no pictures, I wouldn't believe the poster, since TWO sources have the incorrect information. Perhaps we need to take a step back and remember WP:IAR, which is exactly what I'm doing here. The old information is currently incorrect, and it makes no sense to use it, despite the rule. — Ram-Man 16:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The no original research rule is a rule to be used in a dispute between good contributors. The IAR policy applies here so long as there is no dispute. If an anon (who happens to own the bridge and needs to claim it as nonfunctional for legal reasons, for example) disputes that it is used for traffic then sourced statements win. Otherwise let sleeping dogs sleep. 4.250.177.88 05:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to that interpretation. IAR is about ignoring process when it gets in the way of building an encyclopedia. The verifiability and NOR policies are not 'process'. It is true that an unsourced statement about an obscure and/or uncontroversial subject may go a long time without being challenged, but IAR does not protect such a statement. -- Donald Albury 11:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You can object, but I believe that's what the status quo is. verifiability and NOR policies get applies mainly when there are people who contest such information. Uncontested information is allowed to live unless "more verifiable" information comes to light. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that so many unsourced wikipedia articles are not up for deletion. I also suspect that a web-based source may be given higher priority than a more reliable print-only source . Why? Because the one can be verified easily, the other one can't, especially if the book is expensive or out of print. People want accuracy over verifiability, and that's the consensus. The whole point of verifiability is to improve accuracy, otherwise it HAS no point. It's useless verifiable information. — Ram-Man 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If the suggestion is that we allow incorrect information simply because it is published, then I think that's just plain ignorant of the facts, and totally against the accuracy that we supposidly strive for here. I also object to the idea that if said owner would object that we change to sourced statements, which are clearly written some time ago and clearly wrong: (Image:Pool_Forge_Covered_Bridge_Side_View_HDR_3200px.jpg - Note the motorcycle leaving the foot of the bridge) and (Image:Pool Forge Covered Bridge Inside View HDR 3264px.jpg - Note the inside of the bridge is not in fact a barn or shed, but a normal looking bridge (compare)). — Ram-Man 11:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the verifiability policy says,

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, because Misplaced Pages does not publish original thought or original research.

That statement has very long standing in the policy, and is vigorously defended whenever questioned. As stated in the section on "Burden of evidence", statements that are not verifiable from reliable published sources may be removed at any time. -- Donald Albury 14:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(Removed Indentation) First, the sources in question are hardly the most authoritative before, but they are published. They'd be as legitimate as if I got the correct information published in a local paper (if that were even possible for an outsider to do). So perhaps the sources are not all that reliable, although that's a matter of opinion in some cases, since they seem to be quite reliable in other situations. Secondly, most information and knowledge in the world is not published on the web, despite its prevalence. What you have left then is various print media and physical verification of the item in question. The latter is much more reliable. Both take time and money to verify and are unlikely to ever be done in most cases. Misplaced Pages can never even come close to its stated goal (a collection of *all* encyclopedic content) if it rejects such information. Lastly, my point is not that the policies are wrong. But it is clear that people do not follow these policies legalistically, because you could remove almost everything from every article that isn't cited, and even most sentences in those articles that are cited. In fact you'd be justified in doing so according to Jimbo himself. But I'm telling you, it just doesn't happen. I just clicked on "Random Article" and got Greater Morocco. This has one source and seems like a great article. According to the verifiability page, this page should be deleted because none of the information was cited by the original editor (burden of proof for verifiability is on the editor). Only one tiny section would remain. Perhaps I should bring it up at WP:AFD? Afterall "Any edit lacking a source may be removed". How about the case of Khunjerab Pass. The information could be right or it could be wrong, but no one knows. It may theoretically be "verifiable", but who is going to spend $25 to verify this, and then once it is verified, who is going to stop ANOTHER editor from having the same problem? This problem is equal to the problem of physical verification. I could order the book and verify it, or physically go there and verify it, but it doesn't really add to the article. And if I *tell* you that I checked it in a book or checked in in person then you are back to the original problem: it is logically indistinguishable from original research. How do I know you didn't just make it up? All you have to do is say you found it in a book and cite a fake reference to a real book, and the error will never be contested. If you don't believe me, try putting the page on AFD (and thousands of others like it) and see what happens. — Ram-Man 16:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Adding some additional thought: I've read over WP:NOR and read all of the quotes by Jimbo dealing with the formation of this policy. As far as I can tell, my concerns have never been addressed. Sure you can look up the referenced information, but how that is logically different from going there physically? Not really. All of the quotes dealt with either scientific theory (which this is not) and history (which this is not). Both do not easily qualify as verifiable because there is no way to prove them other than publication. You can't physically go back in history and you can't physically visit a theory. But that is again not the case here. It is easy to verify it by physical inspection, which I've argued is no different logically from just believing some alternate source. Might it be true? Who can say? The source does not matter. I think that people understand this intuitively, which is why most Misplaced Pages articles still exist. If it isn't a theory and it isn't history and IS something that can easily be verified outside of publications, then it is allowed. Happens all the time. Pictures are used as original research in this fashion all the time, despite the assertions on this policy page. Pictures are used to describe physical elements of any given object or thing that would never be used in publication because it would either be inappropriate for the medium or because the picture speaks for itself. But this is an encyclopedia, the only one of its type, so it is unique. Take for instance the specifics of a professional bike rider. His bike may be of a certain brand, the colors of his jersey a certain type to match his team, he may carry some number of water bottles, the number of gears on his bike, brand of bike helmet, and a myriad of other details that may be encyclopedic, but would be obvious if shown a proper picture. Lots of these little bits of information would not be published at all and if they were included in the article based on a picture, no one would have a problem, although it would be original research. -- RM 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Original Research question - artist-submitted information

If an artist posts information to an article concerning one of his pieces, is that considered original research and hence verboten? Expanding on the theme: even if the artist had not previously publish the information regarding his piece, but it is rather "in his head," so to speak, is that original research? Fantailfan 16:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A more preferable approach, by the artist, would be. Create a web site, post your views on your work, post a helpful note to the Talk page of your work, stating that you have a website with views on your work. Then wait for some editor to come along and quote you. Wjhonson 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A self-published web site may be dubious as a reputable source (see WP:RS on self-published sources). —Steven G. Johnson 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Except on themselves, where, we accept their claims as their claims. If there is a conflict, you cite it as "The author states that...." since it's a fact that they do state that. Your interpretation of RS on self-published articles by the source about themselves is overly restrictive. Wjhonson 06:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: yes, information directly provided by the artist is original research, not to mention unverifiable, unless it was published elsewhere in a reputable source. You should suggest that the artist point us to e.g. some magazine interview etc. that contains the information he/she wants to convey. —Steven G. Johnson 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's twist it another way. Regardless of its origin, reliability or verifiability, the comments are invaluable regarding his frame of mind, sources of inspiration, etc. at the time he created the piece. (Note I am not saying what I mean by "piece" though a look at my contributions would make it obvious.) So, in a sense, he is doing original research on himself disintermediated by printed articles or books. Therefore it should be deleted as Original Research, Point of View, Unreliable Source and Not Verifiable. It's a shame, really. Fantailfan 17:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Update - I have confirmed the posting is by the artist. Fantailfan 17:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If the article is about the artist, there is some leeway, if he posts that information on his website. Then we can cite his website. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather than keep this in the realm of the vaguely hypothetical, it's better to come out and say explicitly what article we are talking about: Avenging Annie. I'm afraid that this kind of first-person account is blatantly POV, OR, and unverifiable. I'm sure it was done in good faith; the author didn't try to hide what he was doing. We really need to stick with published sources, however, and the author can be of great help to us in identifying interviews etc. that we can go to for similar information. The key thing to remember here is that just because something is good and true doesn't mean it belongs on Misplaced Pages. —Steven G. Johnson 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused -- isn't the intent of NOR to prevent wrong interpretations about something from being inserted into the articles? If this is coming straight from the artist's mouth, then the interpretation cannot be wrong. However, instead of NOR, it sounds like it would be WP:V that would come into play, as we would have no way in the future to verify that it was indeed the artist who said that, as we cannot cite anything. So it sounds like a WP:V issue rather than a WP:NOR issue. Thoughts? --plange 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The NOR policy has nothing to do with the information being "right" or "wrong". (Although keeping out bad information is certainly part of its intent.) It is merely that Misplaced Pages is the wrong venue in which to first publish information. As the policy says, we would have to reject even Pulitzer-level journalism if it were published on Misplaced Pages first. —Steven G. Johnson 19:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because a journalist is writing about something other than themselves and so they are creating original research and attempting to publish it here which is verboten. The problem here seems to be a WP:V thing and can be rectified by having the artist put the information on their own website so it can be cited. --plange 19:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the policy, don't just interpret the title. Any creation/publication of a new primary source violates WP:NOR. Yes, it also violates WP:Verifiability (the two policies are closely related). However, self-publishing it on a website is not generally a way around these policies, because we require Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. —Steven G. Johnson 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter since both of us agree the stuff doesn't belong here, right? That's why it's a holy trinity, one of the three is going to "stick" with somebody and the stuff goes. --plange 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other point, wouldn't the artist's own website be a reliable source for the interpretation of his own artwork? It should of course be augmented with any critical interpretations from reliable critics (Using WP:V), etc., so that it's not POV --plange 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See below. —Steven G. Johnson 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is "Avenging Annie." There is no question that the article is written by Andy Pratt, the author of the song. Although Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a first publisher (and I obviously agree to this policy), are we going to tell him to have his publicist (if he has one) post first on his site and then one of us will link to it? Fantailfan 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it's been done, moved to the talk page by Steven G. Johnson. I know it's policy, but is still a bit irritating. Fantailfan 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding having him post the same account on his website: what do we do in five years if the website goes offline or is changed? How will anyone ever verify the information then? I agree that we could use the website in a pinch, but we strongly prefer traditional published sources for good reason, I think. In this case, the artist is prominent enough that there should be plenty of articles on his work, without making an end-run around the policy like this. —Steven G. Johnson 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why accessdate is strongly recommended when citing from any website (any website has just as much potential to go away as any other, yet we do allow websites to be used as sources) so that the WayBackMachine can be used to pull it up. For instance, if I'm writing an article about Firefly (TV series) and wanted to find out what Joss Whedon, the creator, used as his inspiration, I should be allowed to quote from Whedonesque.com so long as the post was from him. --plange 20:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know. It's all for good and solid reasons, with which I agree. I remember in 1994, Michael Stipe posted "in progress reports" to the R.E.M. board on AOL while the band was doing their new album - and now Time-Warner owns it without even knowing it. Fantailfan 20:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

People lie to themselves and others. An artist who is motivated by A can create a work of art and tell themself the reason is B while telling the public the reason is C. A reporter in source X can get it all wrong and report that it was created for reason D. Misplaced Pages's job is to accurately report that X says D. WAS 4.250 23:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I said the artist's interpretation should also be supplemented by an outsider's interpretation as well. I think to discount and not state an artists view of their own work is misleading. What an artist says of their own work, and what others might think it means, can be very telling. It provides a more well-rounded article. --plange 23:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What an artist says of their own work, and what others might think it means, can be very telling. Yes. But how do we (all of us - editors and readers) know what they said? That is where verifiability comes in. We can't just take someone's word for it. There has to be the ability of any reader (with adequate prerequisites for the material the article covers) to follow the sources and arrive at the same conclusions expressed in the article. WAS 4.250 00:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes, that's why I was saying the artist's opinion needs to be somewhere that is verifiable (their own website, for instance, or an interview, etc) --plange 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We know what they said because we convince the artist to start their *own* website, and then we cite to it. Verifiability on what the artists thinks of their own work, is, in fact, their own statement. There is no need to go any further than that. And no the reader doesn't have to "arrive at the conclusions" they only need to be able to verify that the statements are as quoted, they don't have to *believe* those statements represent truth. If the artist has taken a picture of his dog, and says "This is my cat", then the cat-statement is what the artist in fact said, which is verifiable, but no one else will agree with the statement. Wjhonson 06:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not agree with this site

Think about it users... ok... so many articles and sources that we find on the internet were once original research, somebody wrote it, others agreed and became popular, these are golden words, original research, proven, is sometimes best there is especially in the light on a subject that is little known or information comes from one dubious and subjective source a source that has something against a particular topic or individual or even history as a whole, the golden rule are my words... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.224 (talk • contribs)

Suspect you'd like the quote, "History is a fable, and a poor one at that." or "The difference between a novelist and a historian is this: that the former tells lies deliberately and for the fun of it; the historian tells lies in his simplicity and imagines he is telling the truth." These quotes are from Kristnihald undir Jökli or Christianity under the Glacier (published in English as 'Under the Glacier) by Halldor Laxness as translated by Magnus Magnusson, Vintage 2004

But there is a strong reason for not allowing original research here on Misplaced Pages. Go take a look at the article titled Riksmål to get an idea of the confused point of view pushing that can result because Wikiepdia allows anyone to edit. Unsourced personal opinions result in confusion, edit wars & unusable material.

Suggest you take a look at Uncle G's Primary Notability Criterion also. Might help you better understand the issues.

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 00:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Question for Pproctor

Pproctor — Slrubenstein, Dunc, and FeloniousMonk are well-known editors in good standing, no matter what cooincidences you think you're seeing, so could we put an end to the ad hominem arguments, please?

It is not ad hominem to point out that according to Misplaced Pages:consensus, "At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus." (emphasis-added). And then to provide objective evidence. Unless, you assume the the rules and guidelines here are personally meaningless, except to be used in a higher cause against editors whose POV you disagree with.

By daring to provide a NPOV on creationist Raymond Damadian, I inadvertently got involved in the spat here between the creationists and and their opposition. True believers on all sides. The great irony is that I discovered one of the few real examples of classic natural selection in humans (the partial substitution of uric acid for vitamin-C ) and published this in the journal Nature. Not everyone gets to answer a human evolutionary question raised by JBS Haldane. Also see my picture of Darwin's Cat.

As for "think I 'm seeing". Assuming that editors are distributed randomly across Wiki's million plus pages, the probability that three of the rather few regular editors on Talk:creationism, etc. should suddenly show up here is several trillion to one.

Could you say here what the outstanding issue is for you? I see almost no substantive difference between the versions, just that one has been tidied somewhat. If you think one version comes down harder on people who want to cite themselves, please explain how, and why it would be unfair. SlimVirgin 04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My minor issue here is the attempt to change the existing ==expert editors== guideline to point to the "vanity" guidelines (under other names too-- call a skunk a rose and it still stinks). Far too subjective and thus open to abuse. I'm not talking revolution here--The original long-standing guideline should simply be restored. This seems like a small issue. But I can provode a concrete example of the "illegal" use of the vanity guidelines to harass an expert who dared to try to neutralize a POV.

But a considerably larger issue is the rather underhanded way this rule change is being forced thru, involving multiple violations of Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines. If this is really Misplaced Pages policy, then everyone should know about it. Pproctor 14:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

protected?

Is this still protected for a reason? Its been 5 days. Fresheneesz 07:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

See above question for Proctor. Unless and until that is resolved, I assume the page will stay protected, as the activities of Proctor were likely a significant partion of the reasoning behind protection of the article. I do not wish to speak for SV here, but I'd imagine I'm pretty close to adequately explaining her reasoning. •Jim62sch• 13:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)