Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:44, 11 August 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.

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.

Template:Trollwarning

Could someone define "self-published"?

I'm having difficulty with the concept of "self-published". Exactly what does it entail?

It is unlikely that an author would be invited to write a book about a subject by a publisher. Rather an author writes a book on a certain topic and then tries to find someone willing to publish it. I thus guess the policy refers to the presence of absence of a publisher? Or does it refer to the quality of the publishing firm? If it is the latter then it is quite a slippery policy. How are publishing houses graded into acceptable and not acceptable?

I know of a Swedish reporter who wrote a book so critical of the Swedish banking family, the Wallenbergs, that he could not find anyone publisher who dared publish him. He then chose to publish his unedited manuscript on the internet for free. I guess that example would constitute self published. But if he had found a publisher, what criteria would the publisher have to meet to label the author "self-published"?

For example, are the authors published by this publishing house "self-published", or admissible as sources in wikipedia? Algora Publishing --Stor stark7 15:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Self publishing usually means the author pays for the publication of the work directly. So if I go to a vanity press or print on demand vendor and pay them to create my book, I am self publishing. Likewise if I put a book up on my website (presumably I pay hosting fees of some kind) I am self-publishing.

The key is that self-publishing never involves any form of peer review or editoral process. Traditional publishers decide which books they will publish based on the merit of the book. This acts as a filter to decide what is noteworthy. This is why published sources are preferred to self-published ones. Anyone with enough money can self-publish anything, no matter how worthy or ridiculous the content. Hope that helps, Gwernol 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that helped a lot. I guess it is OK to use books published by Algora Publishing then, since they do not seem to be a Vanity press. As an extra precaution I guess I can check that the book in question has been purchased by at least some libraries, which should mean it has been vetted. --Stor stark7 16:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Self-published material might appear in libraries. It's best to check, if in doubt, that the publication isn't a vanity one, but it's usually quite easy to tell if they are. SlimVirgin 01:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A personal website is self-published. When the author of information stands the costs of presenting his information to the public, then the "self" which created the information is the "self" who is publishing the information. My son-in-law writes Science Fiction as a profession. He uses an agent who has a list of kind of small publishers who publish books by relatively unknown authors. The way it worked with his first published book, he sold the rights to them for something like $ 5000.00 and they ran a printing and distributed it. A publication house like that has a distribution set up, awaiting books to come out of publication and into the distributional network. Terryeo 05:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To the general public

Terryeo, what does published "to the general public" mean? SlimVirgin 06:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If Terryeo wants it to mean it's published in large quantities and widely distributed, that would be a problematic definition. Wjhonson 06:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I paraphrased the meaning of the term "published" from dictionarys. It means, simply, to anyone and everyone.

• To prepare and issue for public distribution or sale, its derivation meaning, act of making public and public meaning, Of, concerning, or affecting the community or the people, derived from adult population or people .
• Another dictionary gives To prepare and issue for public distribution or sale, derived from, to make public where "public" means, The community or the people as a whole, derived from adult population, originating from people . The issue being that publication is an issuance of information to, ideally, everyone, without regard to membership in a club, without regard to education or being part of a Church, Company, or any other qualification. Terryeo 00:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In general it is not the number of copies which makes information published or not, but the intent of distribution which makes an information published or not. On the other side of the fence would be "privately distributed information" (of any number of copies). Terryeo 00:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But it you don't demand that a large number of copies be printed, what happens to your "broad, general public" ? Is 100 copies "broad" ? There are art prints, that are done in limited series, I'm sure you've seen "74/100" meaning its the 74th copy of 100 copies. And yet, would you claim the work of art was not "published" ? It's merely distributed to 100 people willing to pay for it. Well that's published by your definition, since the item is sold to anyone willing to pay, so it must be that publication doesn't have to be "broad". Or by "broad" do you mean, "available for purchase by any member of the general public" ? Wjhonson 04:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The original of published was the town crier, today web pages present a single copy and are published. So the quantity of copies isn't a determining factor in publication, though it is possible the publishing industry has a standard. I don't know what that standard is, but they might have a standard. Yes the art print is published by the definitions of common dictionarys because they are distributed to anyone willing to purchase them. Likewise a webpage is viewable by anyone willing to click to it and read it. On occassion a publication doesn't actually cost anything. "available for procurement by any member of the general public" sounds right to me. Terryeo 13:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are 2 thresholds to meet before an information can be included. First, it has to have been previously published. Then it has to be verifiable. I am attempting to reduce the amount of editor discussion necessary, the amount of time we spend with "is this piece of information verifiable ?". I am attempting to reduce our workload by by stating that a piece of infomation must be published before it can be considered. After that first threshold then would come the second threshold, "is the information verifiable?" Terryeo 13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Published = Made Public

JA: 'Nuff said. Jon Awbrey 06:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Define "made public" Wjhonson 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: The point of the remark is that the concept of publication is about as well understood as it's going to get, and is certainly not helped by tautological additions like "published to the general public". Publication itself does not bear the entire weight of the criterion in question, since there are also the qualifications of reliability and reputation to be taken into account. In this respect, circulation does not substitute for credibility. Jon Awbrey 06:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But John, can an item be "distributed" without being published? That's Terryeo's argument. Is a magazine that is sent to 100 private subscribers, published ? Wjhonson 06:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Best to stick with the way that dictionaries and scholars normally use these words. No good will come of trying to write specific circulation numbers, much less specific distribution histories into the definition. Many journals have small print runs. The fact that a work is printed and can turn up in a library means that it's public. A lot of scholarship is based on sources that are rarer than that in their initial publications. Jon Awbrey 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I like JA's economy of language, but if he'll permit a bit of inflation, I'd say "published=made publicly accessible", to rule out unrecorded speeches and broadcasts. Precis 06:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Published and accessible are two seperate concepts. Published items can be inaccessible, and accessible items may not have been published. Wjhonson 06:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. SlimVirgin 06:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I could be mistaken but I think any published information which we might use will be accessible in some manner or another. Terryeo 13:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So would you say an unrecorded broadcast is published? Yes or no? Precis 07:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. As the town crier once published news, so to the unrecorded broadcast is made public. Terryeo 08:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A broadcast that no has has kept any kind of record of: no audio recording, no transcript, no published story about it? Then it would not be notable, and we wouldn't have to worry about the philosophical question of whether it had been published. SlimVirgin 07:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's like the question" "if a trees falls in a forest and there's no one to hear it, did it make a sound?" Or my personal favorite: "If a man speaks in a forest, and there's no one to hear him, is he still wrong?" ;-D SlimVirgin 07:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm highly offended by SV's last line :-D. Now to the point. Since SV won't answer the question, I'll answer it myself with a simple syllogism.

• published = made public (the title of this section)
• An unrecorded live broadcast (or public speech or concert or matinee) is obviously made public
• Ergo, an unrecorded live broadcast (or public speech or concert or matinee) is published.

Most of us are unwilling to accept this conclusion , so we cannot accept the initial premise either. In short, the answer to my question is NO! That's why I brought accessibility into the picture. SV's point about notability is simply wrong. I doubt if all of Rachmaninoff's unrecorded public concerts can be called non-noteable. Noteability isn't always a prerequisite for citations anyway. An organization is allowed to use non-notable published sources in an article about itself.

P.S. "publicly accessible" does not mean "easily accessible". I'm fully aware that some published items are only available at great expense. I'm also aware that there some previously published works are now completely inaccessible. Hence my definition isn't perfect, if you're of the school that says "once published, always published". Precis 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A public broadcast or play is published. The original was the Town Crier who "published". Reproduceable is another concept. Until reproduced, an information can not be verified. Terryeo 01:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Your syllogism was a tautology, and therefore didn't result in a meaningful conclusion, Precis, but nice try. I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's private-language argument here. There is no such thing as a private language, he argued, because all languages require an element of publicity and public agreement e.g. that "table" means a thing with legs that you can rest other things on, and that it will mean this to all native English speakers. You confirm this by interacting with them around the issue of tables, and sure enough, they seem to be using the word the way you're using it, so all is well: you know you're speaking a language, because the public is confirming that they know what you're saying, and also that you're using the term consistently. This discussion is heading along the same lines. We need public affirmation of some kind before publication can be said to have taken place. We need an entry on Amazon, or a mention in The Times (or local paper), or a letter to the editor, or a transcript of a tape, a copy of a broadcast, and so on. It has to be out there in some form, not just a broadcast that maybe no one even heard, or if they did, they didn't themselves publish their thoughts about it. So maybe there was a sense in which it was made public, but that sense was ephemeral, like me trying to teach myself a private language: that S means sensations like the one I feel in my leg now, and that S1 means sensations like the one I feel now, where I can only hope (but can never know) that the next time I use S or S1, I will use them correctly — because there is no one out there I can share them with, and therefore no one who can tell me if I'm wrong.

SlimVirgin 03:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of a language is to communicate. The purpose of publication is to use language to communicate to the broad, general public. We have gotten used to reproduced and reproducable publications, but publication was common before printing known. and before the common person knew how to write. Even today there are verbal methods of reliably reproducing published information, an editor was talking about how he might create a Misplaced Pages article about a tradition passed on only by word of mouth. Terryeo 01:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I see it this way. Material to be usable as a reference in an article...

1. Needs to have been published by a reliable source;
2. Needs to be verifiable;
3. Better if published in a secondary source, but it if it is only available in a primary source, context comes to play as for its validity for inclusion.

I have yet to see an example that cannot be addressed, as it pertains to its validity for inclusion in an article, by using the simple formulation of WP:V and WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The 3-point Policy statement in WP:V completely leaves off your second point. That's especially embarrassing because it is a statement of policy about Verifiability itself. Precis 20:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To amplify Precis's point, WP:V repeatedly sets the standard of verifiability as "published by reputable sources" or other forms of those words. It does discuss what a reputable source is, but does not discuss what "published" is. This leaves possible areas of dispute. Is a document distributed by a reputable organization with a good reputation for fact checking verifiable if the distributor has taken active measures to prevent the document form falling into the hands of people outside a defined group? Is a widely distributed motion picture verifiable from the time it is no longer in the cinemas until the time the DVD is released? --Gerry Ashton 21:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, precisely, exactly the area of difficulty. "Publish" needs the further clarification to mean, "to the general public, without regard to membership of any kind", that is, "assessible to everyone equally. Terryeo 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, your offered definitions are very unrealistic and unworkable, as is your "general public" notion. And I don't see where anyone in this discussion used membership as a criteria. I think you have imagined that. No information is "accessible to everyone equally". You must be making your definitions up, because they have nothing to do with dictionary definitions - or reality.--Fahrenheit451 04:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

F, this is about the 12th time you have posted that. I got it when you posted it on my user page difference on the 15th of July. I don't agree. "Published" means "distributed to the public" and not "distributed to a select membership (a selected public)" as you have said. And said. And said. Terryeo 14:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, published does NOT mean "distributed to the public". That is nonsense. A good couter-example is a website. That is not distributed, but rather made accessible. "Public" is a group of individuals who share a common interest, like english-speaking people, stamp collectors, software developers, golfers, etc. --Fahrenheit451 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A website which does not require a password is published. It is distributed by the action of a mouseclick but made public by its availability. Its potential availabilty is "everyone" (i.e., the public). Most dictionarys use the word "the" as in "to the public" which means published can never include:

• Reproduced (by any source) and distributed to memebers of a club.
• Reproduced (by any source) and distributed to the people who bought baseball tickets for the 3rd of Jan, 2007 (or any other date).
• Reproduced (by any source) and distributed to attendees of School X, Club Y, or Concert Z.

  But, "published" always applies when an information has been distributed to public without regard to prequalifying criteria. A broadcast via the electromagnetics spectrum would always be published, when information is distributed to a gathered crowd it is published because the crowd is not a prequalified group who have purchased tickets, membership, or prequalified themselves in some other way. There's nothing specialized about reading any common dictionary and applying the words it states.

  "Public" is sometimes used to refer to and seperate from consideration, certain subgroups of people. But the base from which the word springs, its derivation is "people" without any qualification whatsoever. . Everyone, all mankind. "Public" would not include animals nor plants nor rocks nor trees, but instead, "people". When a dictionary states, "published to the public", with no modifier to the word "public" the dictionary means, "published to all of the public", i.e. although not every individual person receives a copy, the target published to is "everyone". Terryeo 08:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You believe that a live unrecorded ballgame is published, but the printed programs handed out at that game are NOT published. Could you explain the rationale? Precis 08:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Absurd, Terryeo. No publication can be intended for the generality of "everyone". Being a media person, I can tell you, again, that your notion is unreal and false. Publications, broadcasts, displays and the like are always intended for a target audience. The people you refer to is a general concept in the abstract. Public, here, refers to the specific case of a group of people who share a common interest. It is too bad that you can't seem to differentiate between the two meanings. I suppose we could blame the english language, but it looks to me like a case of "Terryeo doesn't want to know".--Fahrenheit451 21:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Opening policy nutshell

Hurts my eyes to read such a tortuous sentence. Wjhonson 06:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My assessment is that it is an excellent summary of the policy. Could you explain what does not work for you? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: It's been rewritten since Wjhonson's comment. Bad semicolon fixed and split into two sentences. Jon Awbrey 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A better way to look at accessibility

Reliable, reputable published sources must always be publicly accessible. I think most everyone here would agree. Are they publicly accessible by virtue of being published? (There is disagreement here--some say that the concepts "published" and "accessible" are not that closely related.) Are they publicly accessible by virtue of being reliable? (There is disagreement here too--some say that the concepts "reliable" and "accessible" are not that closely related.) Are they publicly accessible by virtue of being both reliable and published in conjunction? Here I'm guessing that the consensus is YES. If so, it wouldn't hurt to make this holistic interpretation clear on the main pages. (Note: "publicly accessible" doesn't necessarily mean "easily accessible"). Precis 10:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that is exactly right. Terryeo 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

'Accessible' and 'reliable' are orthogonal concepts. There are lots of web sites that would qualify as 'accessible' but not 'reliable'. Contrariwise, private communications between subject matter experts may be 'reliable' but not 'accessible'. To answer the other part of your question—yes; once published in print or online, it's generally fair to say that a work is 'accessible'...but depending on the nature of the publication it may still constitute original research within the meaning of this policy. If you have some specific circumstances in mind, we might be able to provide futher guidance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Published" is one thing, reliable another. The first step is published and the second step, reliable. Understand the first one and the second one might or might not become visible. Terryeo 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a specific circumstance. If we don't accept that accessibility is built into the phrase "reputable reliable published source", then we are faced with the absurd and embarrassing situation where the synopsis of the Verifiability policy at WP:V has little or nothing to do with verifiability. If you disagree, go to the three-point policy section on that page and tell me where accessibility (the cornerstone of verifiability) is mentioned. If we don't require accessibility in that Policy section, how can we say this is a policy about verifiability? Can editors verify something that is inaccessible? Thanks. 13:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But accessibility is part of "published", not part of reliable. The Weekly World News is available at most kiosks in the English-speaking world; but I hope we are not citing it for anything - except, I suppose, itself. Septentrionalis 14:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It is only me? But when I read the whole page on WP:V everything is crystal clear. There is no ambiguity there. IMO, the ambiguity is in editors minds.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A personal website is published and verifiable, but is not reliable. So Jossi, what do you understand "published" to mean that it is not automatically "verifiable"? Terryeo 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, accessibility is prominently mentioned elsewhere on the page. But do you have a good reason why it should be omitted from the synopsis? Including it there might end a lot of cognitive dissonance. Ambiguity may be in the editors' minds, but it is triggered by suboptimal writing. Precis 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We raise problems when we walk past a stated idea. NPOV states All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one and the word "published" is walked right past. A large number of editors simply don't understand that reliable published information IS verifiable information and that privately distributed information is not verifiable and that personal websites, while published and verifiable, are not reliable. Terryeo 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Common knowledge, but no source

I am having a problem with not being able to source a common knowledge and widely accepted opinion, which a user wants to remove because there is no source, even though he agrees it is accurate and factual. It is related to the section Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition#1911 Britannica in the 21st century - and talk discussion Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition#Original research. User:John Kenney is saying that because there is no source for the errors in the EB1911, they should be removed from the article. The errors in EB1911 are self-evident and clear and factual and quoted. Do we really need a third party to "confirm" the errors before they can included in Misplaced Pages? How do we resolve this? Are we not allowed to say that EB1911 has problems as a 100 year old source? This seems so self-evident and supportable by quotes from EB1911. And I've looked, and have not been able to find a recent critical review of EB1911. -- Stbalbach 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: This is a generic problem in Misplaced Pages, and it betrays a number of places where the policies are not written as well as they might be. Outside of here, it is generally understood that we are concerned with grounded research, and that audit trails can ground out in several different ways besides an explicit citation. Common knowledge and common sense are some of those common grounds, but it's notoriously difficult to give a rule to common sense. Have to break here, will get back to it later. Jon Awbrey 19:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The section mentioned makes a number of factual statements, or implies that a number of "facts" in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britiannica are false. While the section seems plausible, I wouldn't be easily able to find a reliable source for any of the statements. Indeed, some of the "facts" from may be tough to conclusively refute. While "a population mainly of good English blood and instincts" does not strike me as the most likely reason for the American revolution being successful, I'd be hard put to find a source that difinitively proves some other reason why the revolution was successful. Perhaps the section should be rewritten to point out aspects of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britiannica that are proveably false. --Gerry Ashton 20:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And, to make it clear, all the claims seem to be either statements like Gerry Ashton's example, which are not now consensus; or statements like the railroad connections of 1911, which are simply no longer true. This is not the extremely contentious claim that the EB was flawed as a statement of the best available knowledge as of 1911. Septentrionalis 00:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gerry, we can't set out to prove EB1911 is false because that would be Original Research. No? Or is there some way to just list false statements and inaccuracies? -- Stbalbach 01:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The overall premis of the section is that EB1911 is out-of-date. I suppose that is a novel position, and collecting all kinds of little clues from primary and secondary sources to support that position would indeed be original research. So I would be much better to find a secondary source that says EB1911 is out of date. Once you find that secondary source, I suppose it would be OK to find additional information to bolster the position. ---Gerry Ashton 02:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No such source exists that I can find. A modern critical review of EB1911, but no one reviews 100-year old reference works. Therein lies the problem. We all know it is true, but there is no source that says it. -- Stbalbach 04:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Oh, is that all. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and the statements in it do not have to be treated with that kind of awe. The burden of verifiability remains on the one who wishes to retain the statement, and it can be deleted if it cannot be verified independently. Another alternative is simply to cite the old curioisity sop verbatim as "blah-blah" (EB 1911), and let the reader judge. Most folks will avoid the absurdity of that unless it's a really amusing absurdity. Jon Awbrey 21:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Solecism/Tautology

JA: Discussion below moved from user talk page. Jon Awbrey 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

At WP:NOR one of your recent edit summaries stated: 22:08, 31 July 2006 Jon Awbrey (Talk | contribs) (revert solecism). Did you mean the edit you reverted was:

• 1. A nonstandard usage or grammatical construction,
• 2. A violation of etiquette, or
• 3. An impropriety, mistake, or incongruity ?

  The reason I ask this questions is because:

• It has not been discussed on NOR's discussion page and because I am the editor whose you stated had created a solecism. So I ask which you consider my edit (which stated publish to the broad, general public), which you consider the solecism to be, nonstand use, violation or impropriety ?
• I ask because of all reproduced information ever created, all of it was created with one of two ideas in mind. 1. Pubished to the broad, general public i.e., everyone, without regard to membership in a club, emplyment in a business, or any other private or specialized consideration. or 2. Privately distributed to the individuals of a club, business or other limited, private distribution such as being a member of the CIA and receiving orders from the chain of command. Feel free to reply here or on my user page or at WP:NOR where the issue is present. If you wish to catch up on the discussions involving this issue, a lot of it took place at the WP:RS discussion page, where editors generally agreed the issue belongs in NOR. Terryeo 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Sorry for the ambiguity. I was referring to the tautological aspects of "publish to the public", and so was using solecism in the sense of a defective bit of logic, in particular, a qualification posing as information that conveys in fact no additional information. For example, the unabridged Webster gives: "a theory, situation, act, etc., not consonant with logic, circumstances, known facts, or the like". Jon Awbrey 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: My general sense here is that you are making a mistake very similar to that of writing too specific a patent or policy, in that every clause you add only magnifies and multiplies the loopholes. We are not charged to create a novel definition of publication here — indeed we are proscribed from doing so. Jon Awbrey 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So charged? I fail to understand what you mean. When "publish" is specifically spelled out to mean, published to the broad, general public, as any dictionary will tell you the common use of the term provides, it can save Misplaced Pages editors huge amounts of discusssion. There is the other possible misunderstanding of the term "publish" and that common misunderstanding would include documents which Ford Motor company created and distributed to their car dealerships, documents which spell out their pricing policy for the season. Those documents are unpublished, those are privately created and privately distributed to individual representatives. Misplaced Pages can not use that sort of information but can only use "published to the broad, general public" information. It will save us editors large amounts of "prove it is verifiable" if we will only make a good definition of publish here at NOR. Terryeo 03:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I respectully disagree. The content policies of WP need to be taken as a whole. "Prove if verifiable" is part and parcel of the editing process where there are content disputes. The Ford brochures are not verifiable, and and not "published" for the purpose of Misplaced Pages for that reason. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I like your work and respect your understanding, but disagree in this instance with your reasoning. I would say the Ford brochures are not published and can not be used because they are not published. Of course, your point is valid, they are not verifiable. On the other hand, they were privately distributed and not published (to the public) and therefore, they are not verifiable. But the hypothetical brochures would never come to the Misplaced Pages table if editors understood what "publish" meant. Terryeo 08:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, your statement "published to the broad, general public, as any dictionary will tell you the common use of the term provides," is an outright falsehood. That is your definition that represents your POV. Publication is always done to a public, that is, a group of people who share a common interest, be they english speaking, knitting hobbyists, or bicyclists. Your definition is rather useless and unrealistic.--Fahrenheit451 20:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

14th time you have said something about "published to a public". But dictionarys say, "published to the public". It is certainly my POV that I understand dictionarys, no arguement about it. :) "the" is general, "a" is specific. Publication is general, distribution is specific. It will save us huge amounts of discussion if we simply go with what WP:NPOV states, "published" and that means "published to the public". I have spelled out that difference a number of times to you, F, and you continue to use the specific word a when dictionarys use the general word, the. Terryeo 14:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Text below moved from my user talk page, as I'm only here off and on anymore, and stuff on my talk page is likely to lose all connection with relevant context. Jon Awbrey 03:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I read your reply as saying there is a logical inconsistancy in defining "publish" to mean, "published to the broad, general public", i.e. everyone? As compared to the idea that publish might mean the distirbution of copied information by anyone, anywhere? But you see, the latter definition would be to say that Misplaced Pages could cite secret government documents, if only they could be verified, that Misplaced Pages could expose the innermost secrets of Freemasonry if only the verifiability were present. Now, you have stated a chain of logic without stating the reason you did the revert. Would you go right ahead and state the reason for your reversion, please ? Terryeo 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: No, a tautology is not an inconsistency. A tautology is simply not informative, as published already means made public, and that's all she wrote as far as publication goes. Jon Awbrey 03:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are saying, "publish" means "to the broad general public" and therefore, to state, "published to the general public" is a tautological statement. I only wish every editor saw it the same way. Unfortunately, not every editor does. here, at WP:RS 2 editors take an opposite point of view, they seem to consider any information with a lot of copies, distributed to a lot of people is "published" information. I am running into too many examples of that kind of thinking, of editors citing unpublished information which has been privately distributed to a selected audience. User:Fahrenheit451, to name one, insists such a distributed information is "published". He has a copy in his hand and therefore feels it is citeable information in Misplaced Pages. But it has never been published, the creator of the information says it is not published. But it isn't just one editor, many of the discussions which happen at WP:RS are about "verifiability" of information which has never been published, but which has been distributed to a private group. Yes, I understand it is a tautology to say: "Published to the general public", but it sure seems necessary ! Terryeo 03:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

But, doesn't Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources still apply? -- Donald Albury 10:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, please stop lying about my discussion statements. I never stated that distributed information was published. You falsely accuse me of that. I ask you to immediately stop spouting lies in our discussions.--Fahrenheit451 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not a personal issue, F. Terryeo 18:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not understanding something. I keep saying, published to the broad general public to distinguish the distribution of information from, distributed to a private group of individuals. Do editors understand these two statements to mean different things? I assume everyone understands the two phrases to mean different things. A website owner publishes, a company which produces and sells books publishes, while Freemasonary distributes their booklets to members and that is not published information but distributed information. What am I not understanding here, help me out? Terryeo 13:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source. That statement necessarily excludes unpublished information. Examples of unpublished information would be the Freemasonary booklets, Ford Motor Company's orders to its production companys, and so on. We have had to test the verifiability of many such unpublished, but distributed information. Invariable unpublished information fails the verifiability test. But it ties up editor discussion pages. If we include the tautology, published to the general public (or something of that nature), we will have more productive editing, I believe. Terryeo 13:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, nonsense. Distributed information is certainly verifiable – one privileged member can leak the document, scan it, and post it online – but it's not a reliable source about anything but itself. (That is, suppose I am a member of the very secret society, The Stonecutters. Every member has access to the Sacred Parchment which describes all of our very secret rules, rituals, and origins. If I post a photograph of the Sacred Parchment online, I would be able to say things like "The Stoncutters' Sacred Parchment describes the first Stonecutter, Bob I, as nine feet tall, with flaming red hair." The Sacred Parchment, however, is not a reliable or peer-reviewed source, so I wouldn't be able to state flatly "Bob I, the first Stonecutter, was nine feet tall." Please, Terryeo, stop trying to rewrite NOR so that you can exclude information you'd prefer we didn't report about Scientology. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That is an example of the sort of issue which drives editor discussion. It begins with a distributed piece of information (unpublished, unverifiable and unuseable). Period. Then someone stole it. Someone attempted to publish it. They placed it in public view. At that moment it is published ! But not before. However, once published Misplaced Pages requires it be verifiable (a webste would be verifiable) and reputable / reliable. The personal website fails in that regard. A discussion on that (hypothetical) information should never reach the WP:RS discussion page because it is unpublished except for the stolen copy, it being of poor repute and only verfiable to itself and not to the good, created information the Stonecutters use. Terryeo 14:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised by your statement. A scan of the "Sacred Parchment" posted on a personal website cannot and should not be used as source for the article on the Stonecutters. Reasons: (a) personal websites are not reliable sources; (b) violation of WP:V; (c) Violation of WP:NOR. Now, if A scholar writes a book or an article in which that "Sacred Parchement" is described, then we can cite from that book or article how the parchment is described by the scholar, but we cannot describe its contents directly even if we have a copy in our hands. Again WP:V and WP:NOR prevents us from doing that. Now, if there is an article in WP about Bob, the first stonecutter, because he is a notable individual, we may with great caution, use primary sources from his website, and this may include a description from Bob's viewpoint on the said parchment, by attributing the description to Bob. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that I would have to emphatically disagree with such a narrow interpretation of the policies. Unless there is reason to be believe that a photograph or scan was altered or forged, such images certainly satisfy the criterion of verifiability.

Perhaps you've misinterpreted what I said. I agree that the Sacred Parchment would not be a reliable source on the topic of the Stonecutters. It certainly would be worthy of mention and quotation within context, as part of a discussion about the mythology of the Stonecutters. Providing a photograph or scan of the document would allow us to verify that the particular primary source hasn't been misquoted or misrepresented. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

a) is false, there are many examples of where "personal websites" can and should be used as sources for articles, in particular "widely known journalists, acknowledged experts in their field of study, who have been previously published by third-party publishers"; b) is sketchy, but in general I might agree, publish the photo in the newspaper or a journal, and on the web, then link to it; c) how is a photo OR ? Does NOR actually address the issue of photos? A photo does not "describe the contents", it is an image. Also a transcription of that image is not OR.Wjhonson 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about websites that do not fall within the category of "widely known journalists, acknowledged experts in their field of study". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply upload the photo, release it from copyright and you're good to go. Your own photo is your own copyright, even if you are photographing something else, so you can release it. Wjhonson 16:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That photo, I am afraid, will not be worth its pixels as it pertains to Misplaced Pages. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades wrote "Unless there is reason to be believe that a photograph or scan was altered or forged, such images certainly satisfy the criterion of verifiability." The circumstances in this discussion are (a) the Stonecutters are a notable secret society, (b) a person has published on a personal web site a scan of a document that purports to be a secret Stonecutter ritual, and (c) this document is not available from any reliable publisher. I feel these circumstances alone create suspicion that the document was fabricated or altered by a person unaffiliated with the Stonecutters, and this document should not be used on Misplaced Pages. Material appearing on the unreliable personal website should only be used in an article about the website, and no material from that website should be used that refers to a third party. --Gerry Ashton 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. 19:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A good example for purposes of illustration. The word "publish" in any dictionary will present published as being to the broad, genearal public because it arises from the word "to the public", that is, to everyone (ideally). We have gone around and around for a long time about verifying distributed information. But that isn't the point at all, the point it, such information is unpublished until it becomes published. When it is published (by whatever method) then it can be included into Misplaced Pages, but not before. This is what places Wikipeda above an expose' newspaper because Misplaced Pages only deals in previously published to the general public information. And as soon as soon as the public has it from a reliable source, *BAM*, it can be included in wikipedia. Terryeo 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The big problem with your argument Terryeo, is that the "general public" is a general concept and does not identify a who. Those who publish, and I speak from firsthand experience, target one or more groups of people who share a common interest as a means to make information public. It can be english-speaking people, spanish-speaking people, coin collectors, joggers. Your "broad, general public" argument, quite frankly, is contrived nonsense. --Fahrenheit451 20:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, "general public" is an undefined and undefinable term, and it's a really bad idea to try to re-write policy simply so you can remove negative material from Scientology articles. Jayjg 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not attempting to remove information anywhere. That is not at all what I am doing, not at all. Please compare these two statements: Information must be verifiable distributed by a reliable publisher and Information must be published to the general public by a reliable publisher. The two statements, for practical purposes, work out to be exactly the same because any information which is privately distributed is not going to be verifiable. The information which is commonly verifiable is information which has been presented to the broad, general public. Don't you see? It practical terms, both statements are equal. So, let me tell you what I am trying to do, which has nothing to do with removing information. I am trying to save us work. We have used the "verifiable" statement for a long time. But, it is based on "published", NPOV actually says "published" and means in the common, broad, to the public sense. NPOV does not mean "privately distributed to selected individuals, members of a Church, a club, a company. It works out the same when you examine it on a case by case basis, but it saves editors huge amounts of discussion to simply follow what NPOV already says,All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. We editors are constantly examining one source or another to determine, by a concensus, whether the source is reliable. There is actually a more foundational, undercutting step which would save us huge amounts of discussion. That step is, "has the source been published to the broad, general public". Terryeo 00:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about the Scientology example, but if the concern is the use of primary sources, disputes about verifiability of sources, and/or concerns about original reserarch, then these can be addressed by involved editors, via the dispute resolution process, rather than attempting to fix something in this policy that may not be necessarily broken. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how anyone could possibly not understand "published" to be anything other than "created and distributed to anyone willing to pay for or otherwise procure a copy", i.e., the broad, general public. However, Several editors obviously consider "publish" to mean something different. Verifiability does bring these two confliting points of view into direct opposition and a concensus of editors at WP:RS then determines whether a piece of information fulfills Misplaced Pages standards, or doesn't. Fine, good. I am saying, "publish" has only one meaning in WP:NPOV and that meaning is not "distributed to a seleted, non-public group". I fail to see where the issue is not clearly presented. I rather don't like F451's tone either, who accuses me of direct lies when this issues has been clearly stated and I've included his words, by link, which state almost word for word what I am stating here. Terryeo 00:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, now you have gone from "published to the public" to this abstract generality of "broad, general public". I object to your lying about what I have presented in these discussions and you have not included any links because you have nothing factual to link. Reminds me of the Office of Special Affairs ad-hominem attack tactic. I suggest you knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 04:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate if editors can take their inter-personal disputes to their own talk pages, rather than airing them here. Thank you for you consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be good if Terryeo kept to the topic and refrained from personally attacking other editors so they do not have reply to that nonsense.--Fahrenheit451 05:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not a personal issue, F. Terryeo 18:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

syllogism

Your syllogism was a tautology, and therefore didn't result in a meaningful conclusion, Precis, but nice try. I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's private-language argument here. There is no such thing as a private language, he argued, because all languages require an element of publicity and public agreement e.g. that "table" means a thing with legs that you can rest other things on, and that it will mean this to all native English speakers. You confirm this by interacting with them around the issue of tables, and sure enough, they seem to be using the word the way you're using it, so all is well: you know you're speaking a language, because the public is confirming that they know what you're saying, and also that you're using the term consistently. This discussion is heading along the same lines. We need public affirmation of some kind before publication can be said to have taken place. We need an entry on Amazon, or a mention in The Times (or local paper), or a letter to the editor, or a transcript of a tape, a copy of a broadcast, and so on. It has to be out there in some form, not just a broadcast that maybe no one even heard, or if they did, they didn't themselves publish their thoughts about it. So maybe there was a sense in which it was made public, but that sense was ephemeral, like me trying to teach myself a private language: that S means sensations like the one I feel in my leg now, and that S1 means sensations like the one I feel now, where I can only hope (but can never know) that the next time I use S or S1, I will use them correctly — because there is no one out there I can share them with, and therefore no one who can tell me if I'm wrong. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You are making my point almost perfectly. We need public accessibility (you called it affirmation) before we can call something published (by my definition). The very ephemerality of the live broadcast prevents me from saying it is "published". I'm fully aware that some others use the broader definition of published, viz., "made public" and would say for example that an Aerosmith concert is published. That seems to me a strange usage of the term, a usage which is moreover far removed from Misplaced Pages. Finally, your comment about tautology is off the mark. Here is an example of a syllogism:

• A implies B, and B implies C, therefore A implies C

This is a valid and frequently used syllogism. And of course it is a tautology. To criticize it for being a tautology is like criticizing an implication for being true. My syllogism had the form

• S=T, and x is in S, therefore x is in T

which is another valid and frequently used argument. Its purpose was to show that if you accept the premise that S and T are well-defined sets that equal each other, then you are forced to accept the rather bizarre conclusion as well. Thus one should reject the premise, as I now think you do. Precis 11:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I ever held the premise, which was "published = made public." I agree that publication in this context can't mean only "made public." If I type up some words on a piece of paper then staple it to a lamp post, I've made it public, but I can't be said to have published it in any sense that's meaningful for Misplaced Pages. We have to be able to attribute our edits, to point to our source in a way that allows the reader to go to where we're pointing, and without unreasonable effort. There are probably legal definitions of "publication" we could use if someone wants to track them down, because courts will have ruled when something that shouldn't have been published (e.g. a state secret or a libel) can be deemed to have been. SlimVirgin 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Because you questioned my definition and left the first one alone, I'd jumped to the conclusion that you held to the first one. I apologize. What you just said above is very wise, but perhaps I only think so because I'm in complete agreement with it. Precis 13:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The first step of publish is to make public. This is the area I'm addressing. Had the notice been stapled to the Science Club's bulletin board then the notice would not have been "made pubic" because it was addressed to a specific group. But, when stapled to a public telephone pole, the information is then "made public". This would be the very first step of "publish". This very first step is not spelled out clearly enough, it causes editor discussions. I have posted some example of the difficult discusssions which happened because this first step of "made public" was not fulfilled by some citations in some articles. WP:RS has also had a number of discussions about information which was never "made public". Often those fall back on the threshold, "is the information verifiable", when actually a good deal of discussion could be saved if editors understood that to be published, information must be presented to the public. Terryeo 18:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

SF Giants programs

Argueablely, the official program was distributed to a select, private audience which had purchased tickets. Should a publisher then put together a book about the Giants and include a portion of that program, distributing it to the general public, it would become published. Terryeo 13:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that if tickets were free that day, the baseball programs would be published, but since there was an admission charge, the programs are not published? Bizarre. Precis 13:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Normally, people pay to attend a baseball game, so I used that illustration. But the cost is not the significant factor I attempted to communicate. The idea of information being distributed to a selected group of individuals does not constitute "published". Instead, "published" means "to the public" and "the public" is not a specific group of persons, but everyone, anyone, without regard to whether they attend a baseball game or stay home or go to the beach. Terryeo 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, published means to make public. Public being a group of persons who share a common interest. In your example the group of persons are those interested in baseball. The publication may reach those who are not, but the intended target of the publication would be reached. --Fahrenheit451 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Fahrenheit 451 would accept "publish means making available to that portion of the public who choose to take an interest in the information; if the distributor takes active measures to restrict who can receive the information, on any basis other than payment of the appropriate fee, the information is not published". --Gerry Ashton 21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That is one of the better definitions I have seen here. I would strike the "choose to" as redundant.--Fahrenheit451 00:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Without "choose to" and stated briefly it becomes: "Publish means making available to any public who take an interest in the information", but, "if the publisher makes any restrictive action about who can get the information, the information is not published" ? Terryeo 00:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite Terryeo, you omitted "on any basis other than payment of the appropriate fee," Also, what purpose is served in a short definition being "stated briefly" when it greatly alters the defintion? Inquisitive minds question your motives.--Fahrenheit451 01:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the "choose to" could indeed be dropped. Also the definition would still have to be interpreted with a little common sense. For example, because I belong to the IEEE, I can buy the (US) National Electrical Code for $55 instead of the $65 that non-members have to pay. I'd say it is still published, even though members get a discount. But if some hypothetical society sold a publication to members for $55, or nonmembers for $10,000, I'd say that isn't published. --Gerry Ashton 02:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the information was technically "published" or not, it's clearly authoritative and verifiable, and I would accept it. Besides, many scientific journals are "restricted" to those willing and able to shell out the cash for them. Deco 21:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The idea of information being distributed to a selected group of individuals does not constitute "published". ... Terryeo 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Then please explain why you consider a live circus performance to be published. Also, since you do not consider SF Giants programs to be published, does that mean a Giants program could not be used as a (self-published) source in an article about the Giants? Precis 21:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No prequalification is done, anyone may purchase entry and view the circus performance. The circus will sell a ticket to anyone. Therefore, the circus is published. With the Giants game, the game is likewise published (anyone may purchased a ticket). But, when a phamplet is distributed to the people who have purchased a ticket and are sitting in seats, there has been a pre-qualification. Those people who are sitting in seats are no longer "the public" in the broadest meaning of the word. They have become a selected group of individuals. Therefore, the phamplet which they receive has been targeted to a preselected and individual group of people who are no longer 'the public' but are attendees. That phamplet is not published when it is distributed to them. The phamplet might become published later, if a newspaper article carrys it. The attendees of the Giant's baseball game are published to for only the information which they purchase tickets for. They are not published to for additional information which they did not intend to purchase. Terryeo 08:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this logic. The live (unrecorded) ballgame is available to anyone who comes to the game. The printed program is also available to anyone who comes to the game. Both the program and the game itself have the same target audience. The same degree of prequalification exists in both situations. If you buy a ticket, you get the program and you get to watch the game. If you don't have a ticket, you don't get a program and you don't get to watch the game. Precis 09:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The difference is intent. Tickets are sold to the general public who purchase and have thereby made a legal contract, transfering ownership (I think) of the entertainment. Assuming there is a stack of programs which anyone who comes to the game can pick up, but which has not been specified by the purchase of a ticket, the programs are not published. They have not been contracted to, nor have they been purchased. Their information is not part of the ticket price, in fact they might have advertisements within them or notes of human interest quite apart from the purchased entertainment. They represent information which is distributed to a targeted audience. (I think) Terryeo 17:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The program still exists after the game, and could be transferred later to anyone interested in it. It would be possible for an interested WP reader to locate somebody with a copy of the program and acquire it from them. It isn't possible for such a reader to view the game, because there is no fixed copy of it. Publication only refers to fixed copies, I think. JulesH 16:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You are now entering the Terryeo zone... I'm afraid those of us who've edited the Scientology-related articles are familiar with his curious logic. :-) A program for an event is plainly published - not only that, it constitutes an important and well-established source of information (see ephemera). Admittedly, it isn't necessarily very easy to find, but in the case of the SF Giants I would bet that you would be able to access a copy at the SF Public Library and certainly in the Giants' own archives. This plainly differs from an unrecorded live performance. Terryeo's assertions that ownership of the entertainment in a live event is "transferred" is completely bizarre - ownership remains very firmly with the performers, as anyone who's tried to make a bootleg recording will find out. When you pay for admission to an event you're actually only paying for entry to a private area for a limited period of time. You're not guaranteed to see anything - the performers might get sick, there may be technical problems, etc. An unrecorded live performance cannot be a verifiable source but a recorded live performance can, as it's available in a "fixed" format. -- ChrisO 21:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The logic is curious to me for another reason. I don't understand how there is a difference in intent. The intended audience for the live game and for the stack of programs is the same: the subset of the public willing to pay the price to enter the stadium. Precis 21:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. Yes, the program has ads in it, but the stadium is also plastered with ads, so there is no difference there either. Precis 21:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally, in modern times, the purpose of publication is to make money. This idea could be expanded to: "providing jobs for people, bettering people's lives" but isn't necessary. What is necessary is some exchange, something valuable given (information / entertainement) for something valuable received (money). The tickets get sold, the game is 'published' (by my arguement, though this is a specialized aspect of the term, 'publish'). It is made public in exchange for money. The target is "the public" (anyone who buys a ticket). But, when those persons arrive at the game then they are no longer the general public, but are a preselected group from the general public. So, any distribution of information to them, which is exclusively to them, is privately distributed information to a selected audience. The intent of the privately distributed information is not to reach the general public, but is to reach people who attend the baseball game. This sounds a little weak to me, too, but I think the intent of publish is always and necessarily to the general un-preselected public, or it doesn't meet the definition of publish. Terryeo 00:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You say But, when those persons arrive at the game then they are no longer the general public, but are a preselected group from the general public. So, any distribution of information to them, which is exclusively to them, is privately distributed information to a selected audience. Once the game starts, it is being presented to the very same group which you no longer consider the general public. So why do you say the game itself is published? Precis 01:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I say the game is published when the game is played. The game is played because the public purchased tickets to see it. Whereupon the publisher must then fulfill his end of the contract, he must act ! He must publish the entertainment to fulfill the contract(s) he has made. The playgd game is the publication, while the sale of tickets is a promise to publish, a contract to publish. Counterwise, to use that audience (which is a self selected portion of the public) as a target for a private distribution of information which they did not purchase tickets for, does not constitute "publication" (as I understand the word). Terryeo 19:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If it were printed on each ticket that the ticketholder is entitled to a free program, would that contractual obligation change your mind, i.e., would you then call the programs published? Precis 22:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Signed Posts

If I had a public key for Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, or Donald Trump that my bank signed, then I think I would be able to trust their material as verbatim. But perhaps the key should also bear their e-mail address or web site, just in case any kids bear those legal names.

And, I guess the verbatim and complete material might go in wikiquote, just in case you wanted to check the signature, yourself, to ensure that you were talking to the same Elvis.

216.234.170.66 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Costello, that is.

Information collected in that manner would be {WP:NOR|original research]], and could not be used in Misplaced Pages. -- Donald Albury 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The process of finding and using a post probably would be original research. However, we use lots of material from the web. We usually use the domain name and the reputation of the organization that owns the domain name to establish reliability. A digital signature on a web page by a suitable person or organization could be an alternative to relying on the domain name for reliability. --Gerry Ashton 21:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What if it's published in a journal first?

Hi.

I'm wondering about this "no original research" policy, specifically, would the following scenario be against the policy?:

1. Person publishes their original research in a peer-reviewed journal.

2. Research passes 5 years of vigorous scrutiny.

3. Person writes an article here about their own research, BUT they ONLY include the ideas that were in the published, peer-reviewed journal, and reference it.

If this is against the policy, then I think this needs to become an exception because the whole point has to do with peer review and verifiability. If it gets peer review and the peer-reviewed content is all that is mentioned in the article, it shouldn't matter if the research is technically "original" (ie from the same person as the author of the article) or not. If it _doesn't_ go against the policy, perhaps this should be made clear.

--70.101.146.206 21:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The policy already says "If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. " --Gerry Ashton 21:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed: NOR means that the source should be a journal, and not Misplaced Pages. For the NOR policy it's irrelevant who authored it. As a matter of fact, experts are encouraged to contribute to Misplaced Pages; strong cases of self promotion yield of course unbalanced articles that are nevertheless easily detected and corrected. Harald88 22:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So what, exactly, is the criteria which distinguishes an "expert"? Is it "a published journal or better?" How much recognition is required before an individual can be quoted from his own, personal website? Terryeo 00:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The policy should spell out the fact that this is inevitably a relative concept--does it? In other words, the qualifications of a notable "expert," "researcher" or "critic" will vary from topic to topic--you would expect degrees, professorships and papers in scholarly journals from an expert in, say, thermodynamics or medieval miltary history. But those would not be appropriate minimum expectations for an expert in some field where the bulk of discourse takes place outside of academia: Beanie babies, professional boxing, Disneyland. BTfromLA 00:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My great uncle, who had only a high school education, was consulted by university professors for his knowledge of the habitat and ranges of varieties of the Apple snail in the Florida Everglades. Unfortunately, he never published, so I can't cite him as an expert. It all comes back to be varifiable from published, reputable sources. -- Donald Albury 01:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable and published are separate questions from what constitutes an expert. A "reputable source" in the world of Beanie Baby collecting would certainly not meet the standard for a reputable source about elections in Iraq, which in turn probably wouldn't meet the standard for a reputable source about blood coagulation. The policy should be flexible enough to recognize that, seems to me. BTfromLA 01:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC) To clarify: I mean that they will not meet the same standard, if the standard is drawn in terms of just one type of discourse. If "reputable" requires peer-reviewed scholarship published in a printed academic journal, for example, lots of popular culture topics will have very little to draw from. BTfromLA 01:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Publication in an academic journal is never a requirement for a reputable source, although in many research areas almost all reputable sources are. In popular culture areas there are often authoritative or respected figures or works which take the place of this, such as the official Beanie Babies website. Deco 01:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

All true, and all requiring the exercise of good editorial judgment. It does no good to get too precise about details in our policies. We want to avoid too many loopholes while allowing the needed flexibility. For an interesting take on what it means to be an expert, see this article in the current issue of Scientific American. -- Donald Albury 02:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Need some opinion here

The editors of the Bob Dylan article are arguing that their prose does not violate OR and some others have nominated it to FAR. This desparately needs some neutral, third-party eyes to step in here. Of interest too is the talk page for the article. I'm not sure I'm expert enough to step in myself. I'd always assumed "brilliant prose" still needed to be backed up by sources - I can't say something's the greatest thing since slice bread unless a reputable and verifiable source has made that claim, right? plange 23:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed definition of Publish

Based on Gerry Ashton's definition, I propose this definition of publish: "Making information available to the interested public without active restrictions (lawful non-disclosure agreements, statutory confidentiality), other than a means of exchange (barter, fees) or a level of knowledge (pre-requisites)."--Fahrenheit451 02:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Counterproposal—"Publish: To make available in fixed form (i.e. paper, CD, web page) to the interested public without active restrictions (i.e. non-disclosure agreements), except non-free publishers may apply restrictions to assure payment."

I don't like the idea of barter, because this could restrict distribution to people who have something unusual. I don't like the idea of a level-of-knowledge restriction; I've heard of it for university classes, but never for just buying a publication. --Gerry Ashton 02:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was using it to illustrate that something like algebraic topology is still published even though the pre-requisite might be a course in abstract algebra.--Fahrenheit451 03:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What does that Oxford Concise say ? Terryeo 07:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We have already been through dictionary defintions, Terryeo. This discussion came into being because those were not clear enough for our purposes, leading to editing disputes.--Fahrenheit451 23:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are we trying to re-invent the wheel? I would argue that the defintion of publish as intended in this policy is related to "to make generally known" coupled with "to have one's work accepted for publication". More definitions here and here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the to make generally known and to release for distribution at Jossi's second link, there. Terryeo 08:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No wheel reinventing intended. I think this discussion arises out of a need for a definition that is clear for editing purposes and conforms with the dictionary definitions.--Fahrenheit451 03:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, let's keep it consistent with widely accepted definitions of the term. The proposed wording above is not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I do not think that it would be useful to define "published" without sufixing it with "reputable". The directing we should go shold be around: "A source Material made available to the public by a reputable publisher." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear jossi, no attempt is being made to slip past "reputable" nor to slip past "verifiable". We are attempting to lay a solid foundation which editors will clearly understand. On that foundation goes the next brick which will probably be "reputable". It is an attempt to make easy, easy to understand and hard to misunderstand. It is an attempt to reduce the amount of quibble, not an attempt to circumvent WP:V. Terryeo 04:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is an alternate proposal, followed by my rationale.

• For the purposes of Misplaced Pages, a published source is one which provides verifiable information to the public.

Rationale: When Misplaced Pages policy refers to "published", verifiability is a necessary condition, with no exceptions. Jossi's idea to combine "published" and "reputable" is tenable, except on the rare occasions when Wikipedians want an understanding of "published" independent of reputability, for example, when an organization uses a self-published source in an article about itself. Precis 08:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Precis' define has strong points. I would prefer.

• For the purposes of WIkipedia, a published source is one which provides verifiable information in a reliable way to the general public.

Rationale: "to the general public", rather than "public" can prevent misunderstandings. Including "Reliable way" is again, almost redundant. But reliability, stability, is important to Misplaced Pages. Terryeo 16:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And "general public" is an abstract, general term which has nothing to do with publishing. The target of publishing is "a group of people who share a common interest" which is not a mob, or the masses, or everybody.--Fahrenheit451 22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not every person who is published to and receives a copy of something "shares a common interest". Sometimes the person is in a location which is being broadcast to by the electromagnetic spectrum or by audio speakers. Other times a person is sitting in a airport seat and reads a newspaper sitting nearby, or a magazine. "publish" is broad, general and does not specify exactly who gets the information, instead the information is distributed to just anyone and that is what is meant by the word, "public" (people). Terryeo 22:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not true, the common interest could be a common language and english-speaking people are a public.--Fahrenheit451 23:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Would other editors please comment on this issue? Terryeo 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I like the evolution of Gerry Ashton's definition of publish:"To make available in fixed form (i.e. paper, CD, web page) to the interested public without active restrictions (i.e. non-disclosure agreements), except non-free publishers may apply restrictions to assure payment." I think this is the most workable definition proffered thusfar.--Fahrenheit451 23:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"fixed form" is another issue. Distribution is the issue we can't seem to come to a mutual agreement about. Terryeo 00:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Publication implies fixed form. Terryeo, you seem to believe that watching Dumbo do tricks at the circus is a publication, and it is not, it is a performance. A recording of the performance made available to attendees would be a publication. On the matter of distribution, the consensus seems to be that a group of interested persons is the intended public of a publication. --Fahrenheit451 02:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that a definition of "publish" that deviates from the common definition would be a no-no. Ashton's proposed wording is not based on that common understanding. I am observing that editors are trying to "fix" policy so that they can use or otherwise challenge a source in articles they are involved with. That may be obfuscating their ability to make proposals that may improve the current wording. I would argue that anybody that comes to check Misplaced Pages, would have a very simple and direct understanding of what "published" means and what a "reliable source" means. We already have enough work in explaining to newbies and the world what NPOV is, and we do not need to say "but wait: we also define 'published' very differently than you do". Let's keep it simple, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Let us not deviate at all. Let us use a good dictionary definition. Someone suggest one. My main interest is that "publish" means "to people" and not to "the selected group of people holding a firecracker in their hand" (or some other selected group) which would be non-dictionary based. Terryeo 02:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

And Terryeo makes up a wierd, unrealistic example to propagandize his POV "the selected group of people holding a firecracker in their hand". Terryeo has been presenting his particular definition of publish, which there is a consensus against.--Fahrenheit451 04:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I don't see that adding a definition of publish will make matters worse for wikipedians. On the contrary, I think it could bring clarity to the editing process. Yes, it should not be different than the dictionary definition, rather it should be similar, but refined for our editing purposes.--Fahrenheit451 02:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

F451, I simply don't see how you can possibly consider "published to a public" to be a definition at all of published ! The word "public" means "poeple", that is people without any qualifications or preselection. i.e. everyone, i.e., the common public, i.e., the general public. I simply don't understand why you don't get what (I think) everyone else understands "publish" to mean. Terryeo 02:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, please knock off your lying nonsense. I never stated "published to a public" You stated that. Other editors have already unfavorably commented on your rather unrealistic and shortsighted definition of publish. --Fahrenheit451 04:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My lying nonsense? I don't understand. Terryeo 05:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You do understand. No false pr please.--Fahrenheit451 06:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lying nonsense. I think I'll take offence to that, User:Fahrenheit451. Please stop your personal attacks, per WP:PAIN. There are better communications you could use than "lying nonsense" no matter how strongly your opinion differs from mine. Terryeo 08:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, that is exactly what you are doing. Please stop falsely accusing me of personal attacks. You are repeatedly misrepresenting what I have stated in this discussion and that is not opinion, it is documented fact. Knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 12:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Fahrenheit451 you stated: I changed the article in the definition "public" from the to a editing difference and stated the "a" (not "the") this editing difference. Also, you have made the statement in other places, always insisting on "published to a public" in preference to "published to the public" which is what common dictionarys use. Example: To bring to the public attention; announce Terryeo 06:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

And you took that from an old thread which is no longer under discussion. I have no objection to "the" public as long as "public" is taken in the correct context of "a group of people who share a common interest". --Fahrenheit451 13:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

By your reasoning, something in Playboy wouldn't be considered "published" because Playboy is only available to adults. In fact, something published in a newspaper isn't really published, because the newspaper might not be available in some parts of the world. (Of course, you could buy a copy and mail it, but that's true of all unpublished material.) Heck, even if the newspaper's published everywhere in the world, it's still only available to people willing to pay for it, and that isn't everyone.

It doesn't make sense to say that something is only published if it's available to absolutely everyone. Available to a large group of people has to be enough. Ken Arromdee 03:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Have I said "must be available to everyone?" no. I have stated the common, dictionary definition of "publish" which is to distribute to "public", to "the people". Playboy is published because it is available to "the adult population" which is exactly the derivation of "public" which common dictionarys use. dictionary.com- Written at 03:51, 6 August 2006 by Terryeo. (sorry, signing) Terryeo 05:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, please sign your posts. And stop the lying, you did say everyone: "Normally, people pay to attend a baseball game, so I used that illustration. But the cost is not the significant factor I attempted to communicate. The idea of information being distributed to a selected group of individuals does not constitute "published". Instead, "published" means "to the public" and "the public" is not a specific group of persons, but everyone, anyone, without regard to whether they attend a baseball game or stay home or go to the beach. Terryeo 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)" and "Public" is sometimes used to refer to and seperate from consideration, certain subgroups of people. But the base from which the word springs, its derivation is "people" without any qualification whatsoever. . Everyone, all mankind. "Public" would not include animals nor plants nor rocks nor trees, but instead, "people". When a dictionary states, "published to the public", with no modifier to the word "public" the dictionary means, "published to all of the public", i.e. although not every individual person receives a copy, the target published to is "everyone". Terryeo 08:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)" and "F451, I simply don't see how you can possibly consider "published to a public" to be a definition at all of published ! The word "public" means "poeple", that is people without any qualifications or preselection. i.e. everyone, i.e., the common public, i.e., the general public. I simply don't understand why you don't get what (I think) everyone else understands "publish" to mean. Terryeo 02:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)" --Fahrenheit451 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I used a word to make clear an idea. I used "everyone". I am attempting to spell out a difference.

• Publish to a public suggests that information which is distributed, is to a group of people who might be club members or the people within a stadium or the people within a room or the left-handed, brown-eyed people with short hair. That is not a possible use of the word, "publish".

And your statement is ridiculous: There are hunting magazines, fly-fishing magazines, mountain bike magazines, golfing magazines, etc. that cater to specific groups of people who share a common interest. Publishing to a public occurs all the time, therefore your conclusion is utter nonsense.--Fahrenheit451 06:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The publishers of those magazines would strongly prefer to find their publications more widely accepted and they make lots of extra copies in an effort to increase the circulation of their magazines which, they know, are purchased by people with an interest in them, purchased by doctor's offices who keep a copy to amuse their patients, purchased by libraries, purchased by sporting goods stores who might keep a copy for browsing on their counter, purchased for subscription by wives for their husbands for birthdays, and the list could grow extensively. Sure, there is a targeted audience but that targeted audience is not the exclusive distribution of a publication. A publication distributes beyond, well beyond, those people who will actually use the information within the publication; i.e. "anyone, the public". Terryeo 08:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Having written magazine articles and worked with magazine publishers, I can tell that those publishers want to increase subscriptions by finding more people who are interested in the subject matter of the publication. And it is not "anyone", the publisher is looking for more interested people to subscribe. The public is a group of people who share a common interest, and it isn't just those who use the information, but all who are interested. So, no it isn't "anyone". It isn't for those who are not interested or dislike the subject matter. Printing copies for "anyone" would bankrupt the publisher. Your argument is fallacious, Terryeo.--Fahrenheit451 12:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Publish to the public suggests the targeted people are unspecified. Because the word "public" means an unspecified group of people, the people, the adult population, then "the public" is anyone at all. Not just the people of a club, not just the people within a room, not just the people within a stadium, but anyone. I used "everyone" in an attempt to make this idea clear. There was no lie intended. The concept seems wonderfully simple to me and it exapperates me that anyone would consider it could mean anything else because any dictionary says the same definition, to the public. Terryeo 05:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, then just name us one publication that is intended for "the public".--Fahrenheit451 06:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Webster's II New Colege Dictionary pub.1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company, ISBN 0395962145. It states on page 895, "Publish: To issue and prepare for public distribution and sale" and defines "Public: open to the judgement or knowledge of all." Terryeo 07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to name one publication that is intended for "the public" and you did NOT do that, instead you listed a link to definitions you selected. Again, if you cannot provide the name of a publication that is intended for "the public" as you define, your argument is invalid.--Fahrenheit451 12:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ken Arromdee, available to a large number of people suggest the information was published, but not always. Some computer documents are in the hands of thousands of programmers and managers, but they are not published because these people had to sign non-disclosure agreements to get the documents. I don't have a government security clearance, but I presume some secret documents are distributed to tens of thousands of people. --Gerry Ashton 04:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

To fix your continuous problem between "the" and "a", I would suggest that you consider whether: "Anyone who has the means, may obtain a copy from the publisher, without undue interference." Or language to that affect. Wjhonson 19:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That definition is o.k. I dn't know whether you were addressing me or not, but the definite versus indefinite article controversy is long over for me. I guess Terryeo is still fighting that battle.--Fahrenheit451 20:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement of Gerry Ashton's proposed definition

Please comment on this: "Publish: To make available in documented form (e.g. paper, CD, web page) to the interested public without active restrictions (e.g. non-disclosure agreements), with the exception that non-free publishers may apply restrictions to ensure payment for a publication." --Fahrenheit451 05:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC) revisions in script--Fahrenheit451 13:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Interested public" narrows the field too much. It is not the meaning of "published" that the information only reaches the "interested public". It is the intent of "publications" that information reach the broad, general public with no restriction about interest, color of hair, location, language spoken or any other parameter. Terryeo 05:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, no one stated that "interested public" was the meaning of published. Please identify those publications that intend to reach those who are not interested, live anywhere, or do not speak the language of the publication. If you cannot document any such publications, then your argument is invalid.--Fahrenheit451 06:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good gosh. That you say my statement is invalid does not make my statement invalid. I state that "Publish" derives from the word "public" and means, "publish to the public". This is not rocket science. I state that to constrain the distribution of published information in any manner whatsoever ("interested public" or any other constrainment) is counter to and specialized from the common use and understanding of the term, "publish". The common understanding of the term is stated in common dictionarys. Terryeo 07:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

When you contradict yourself, that makes your argument invalid. You insist that a game played in front of people within a stadium is "published". Yet you say (emphasis mine)

• Publish to a public suggests that information which is distributed to a group of people who might be club members or the people within a stadium or the people within a room or the left-handed, brown-eyed people with short hair. That is not a possible use of the word, "publish".

That's a flat-out contradiction. You can try to explain yourself by bringing in other issues, such as publisher's intent, but it's too late: the contradictory statement has already been made. Note: It is your view that a live football game is published but the half-time band entertainment is not, even though both are performed before the same public (those in the stadium). To avoid further contradictory statements, it may help to specify the other criteria you use in your definition (publisher's intent, public expectation, or whatever). Precis 09:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. You state that if the distribution of material is constrained "in any manner whatsoever" then you wouldn't consider it "published". Yet you consider a live football game published even though the publisher is imposing a constraint: only people in the stadium get to watch the game. So you contradict yourself once again. (It is irrelevant that tickets are available to the general public. If you are too sick to go to the stadium, you don't get to watch the game, whether you have season tickets or not.) Precis 11:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what on earth is going on here. An "interested public" is self-selected. A magazine, or a journal, or a book is published to be purchased and read by whoever in the public is interested in it. Thus, the interested public. People who are not interested will, by definition, not buy it, because they are not interested. I suppose one can come up with silly exceptions, like "the guy who catches part of a movie in an electronics store," but that's just silly and not an exception which really warrants changing the definition. That things are published for the interested public is more or less a tautology, and I can't for the life of me understand why it is controversial. Also, everyone should remember that etymology is not destiny. Just because a word derives from a particular Latin root does not mean that its meaning is forever cicrcumscribed by the meaning of that Latin word. Beyond that, though, I've got some doubts about Gerry Ashton's definition - "except non-free publishers may apply restrictions to assure payment" is both awkward and not grammatically correct, if I'm not mistaken. It would at least need a "that" after except to be grammatically right, but even so it's an awkward and artificial way of saying things. I'm also somewhat concerned about the mention of "web pages." That makes for a pretty broad definition of "published," which would include, say, every blog in the world. Why so much emphasis on "published sources" in this extremely broad sense, when what really matters is reputable published sources? john k 12:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Point well taken, but "reputable" is something other than "published". Sure, web pages are usually published.--Fahrenheit451 13:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose, although web pages aren't a fixed form, usually. john k 13:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess one could consider billboards to not be fixed form because they can be changed as well. However, a copy or image of the original can be saved, but I will revise by substituting documented for fixed.--Fahrenheit451 13:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I used fixed as a synonym for recorded in any way, and in contrast to live performance or live radio or TV performance that was not recorded in any way. The audience of WP policies and guidelines might not think that is the definition of fixed so documented is probably a better word. --Gerry Ashton 16:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote the first verision of this definition I should have used e.g. instead of i.e. because paper, CD, and web page are only examples of publication media, not an exhaustive list; similarly a non-disclosure agreement is only one of many ways a distributor could use to distribute a work and yet prevent it from being published. --Gerry Ashton 16:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I just amended it accordingly.--Fahrenheit451 16:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is no need to define this as a matter of policy - it should be left to editor discretion. If there's one "exception", I don't see why there might not be more. What if they only offer it, for example, to people who complete a brief survey? Deco 17:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What if they offer it in exchange for completing a survey, and the survey includes questions that would facilitate identity theft? The whole point is to rule out any restriction that excludes groups of WP readers and editors for reasons that are not in keeping with a free and open exchange of ideas. Some restrictions might be in keeping with free and open exchange of ideas, for example, a library in a generally affluent country might require patrons to wear a shirt and shoes. Other restrictions are not in keeping with the free and open exchange of ideas, for example, a white supremacist organization might require a person to join the organization before receiving documents. --Gerry Ashton 19:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Good point. I will amend by substituting exchange for payment.--Fahrenheit451 18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

\

I continue to oppose a narrow interpretation of "publish". This navel gazing does not reflect well on this project. I would ask editors to refrain from making comments such as "you are lying", "it is ridiculous", etc. These are uneeded, unacceptable and detracts from the debate. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid "to ensure exchange for a publication" does not make gramatical sense. Also, exchange is too general a term. Saying that an information distributor can require anything in exchange for a publication and still consider it to be published makes the entire definition pointless. --Gerry Ashton 19:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the grammar there. According to Oxford exchange means: "an act of giving one thing and receiving another (esp. of the same type or value) in return." This is in response to the editor who brought up the point of requiring completion of a survey. We could fall back to "payment", it's just that there will be some exceptions to the definition. I guess that's o.k.--Fahrenheit451 20:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo does not answer proof challenge

When asked on two occasions in these discussions to provide examples of actual publications that fit his definition of publish, he did not do so. --Fahrenheit451 13:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I sure don't follow your reasoning. Every book in a bookstore is "published" and I used a copy of Webster's dictionary in replying to your "challenge" above. Terryeo 18:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Terryeo has been unable to provide Examples of publications that fit his definition of published. So, just assuming Terryeo is really using Webster's Dictionary as an example of his definition of published, we find that Webster's is written in english, this excludes all non-english literates. Thus, Webster's is published to a group of people who share a common interest, the english language. It is also not published with distribution to those who do not want it, but use another, like Oxford. That is not "everyone". I think it can be stated that Terryeo's arguments for his definition have been demolished.--Fahrenheit451 18:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not entirely true, it is published to the broad, general public and anyone may purchase it. Which is the actual intent of the word, "publish".

I stated that above your "LOL" response, before you made your response. "published" means to "anyone, everyone" without qualification. That idea is opposite to the idea which you keep presenting which is "published means to a specific group of people". I state, "published to the public" and you state, "published to a public". This seems a very clear difference to me, and easily addressed as an issue, it revolving around a single word. Terryeo 23:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of "Publish"

Princeton's WordNet

Verb

• S: (v) print, publish (put into print) "The newspaper published the news of the royal couple's divorce"; "These news should not be printed"
• S: (v) publish, bring out, put out, issue, release (prepare and issue for public distribution or sale) "publish a magazine or newspaper"
• S: (v) publish, write (have (one's written work) issued for publication) "How many books did Georges Simenon write?"; "She published 25 books during her long career"

Adjective

• S: (adj) published (prepared and printed for distribution and sale) "the complete published works Dickens"
• S: (adj) promulgated, published (formally made public) "published accounts"

Misplaced Pages Publish

"Publishing is the industry concerned with the production of literature or information – the activity of making information available for public view. In some cases, authors may be their own publishers. Traditionally, the term refers to the distribution of printed works such as books and newspapers. With the advent of digital information systems and the Internet, the scope of publishing has expanded to include websites, blogs, and the like. As a business, publishing includes the development, marketing, production, and distribution of newspapers, magazines, books, literary works, musical works, software, other works dealing with information. Publication is also important as a legal concept; (1) as the process of giving formal notice to the world of a significant intention, for example, to marry or enter bankruptcy, and; (2) as the essential precondition of being able to claim defamation; that is, the alleged libel must have been published."

Wiktionary

1. (intransitive): To issue a publication.
2. (transitive): To issue something (usually printed work) for sale and distribution.
3. (transitive): To announce to the public.

I would argue that we do not need to go around tyring to find a definition of "published". Just use these or a combination of these. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi you keep coming back to "we don't need to", and yet when you are pressed on particular examples you fall back on some other policy like WP:V. Like the Supreme Court, you're skirting the main issue, on a technicality. Wjhonson 19:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I acknowledge that you don't like us formulating a editorial definition of "publish" here, but the editors in this discussion see a need to assist in preventing disputes. The dictionary definitions unfortunately don't quick succeed in that.--Fahrenheit451 20:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The number of editors involved in this discussion, that agree to a look for a narrow definition of "published", does not warrant a change in this policy, IMO. My assertion is that there is no need to define what is already defined and widely accepted, and so far no one has been able to explain why there is a need for a definition that is different. All the discussions so far have been about finding a definition, and not about the need for a definition. Fort those forwarding the argument that "it will be helpful in avoiding disputes" I would respond, that maybe the issue here is that "it will be helpful in avoiding my disputes". We have a dispute resolution process in which users such as Terryeo and Fahrenheit451 can resolve content disputes. There is no need to change policy for that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I endorse what users ≈ jossi ≈ and Deco have been saying--this talk page contains a lot of non-productive fussing over something that is best left to editors' judgement and to the established methods for dispute resolution when conflicts occur. BTfromLA 20:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Jossi, BTfromLA, and Deco, and I agree with Fahrenheit451. There is too much fighting already over what is a reliable source and what constitutes original research. We need to get these definitions nailed down. We do not need to give the crackpots (I just took one to arbitration) and conspiracy theorists more leeway to sneak original research into Misplaced Pages. --Coolcaesar 03:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi and BTfromLA are right. 'Published,' 'reliable source,' and 'original research' have all been sufficiently defined at Misplaced Pages for a very long time; recent attempts here to redefine these terms are fatally flawed and will never pass muster and make into canon. FeloniousMonk 04:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

CC, I think this page fairly pins down what OR is. As for inventing a new definition of publishing, I don't see the point. Terryeo, can you give me an actual example of a situation where not knowing what the word "published" means has caused a problem in Misplaced Pages? SlimVirgin 05:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. this edit This extensive discussion Talk:Suppressive_Person#The_.22Cross-Hatting.22_paragraph came about because User:Fahrenheit451 made the edit which introduced quoted information referenced to an unpublished document which he cited. F451 said he had the document in his possession because he was once a member of the Church and had kept a copy. The document is unpublished. I quoted and cited from a published, available book which states that it is unpublished. Editor discussion then followed which revolved around the WP:V arguement, is the information verifiable. F451's arguement was that a person could verify the document by purchasing a course for $21,000.00 (or some vast figure) and could then verify it.

User:Really Spooky held high the torch, he and User:Fahrenheit451 did a small edit war over it.

User:Fahrenheit451 still insists the document is published, most recently stating; My point is that it IS published, but of rather limited distribution, which can make verifiability difficult.--Fahrenheit451 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) (difference). But I have repeatedly told him and quoted from a source that the document is not published, can not be purchased, and even when taking the course the student can only "listen to" the document and read its transcript. Terryeo 06:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, please stop misinforming the editors in this discussion. The student receives a copy of the transcript and gets to keep it. So, it is published, although to a small public. Here is an image link to a promotional leaflet for the course, which is published by the way and --Fahrenheit451 02:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it is not published. Your document which you have in your possession was not purchased by you. The public can not purchase it. Even after I quoted the specific text which said so, you continued to insist it to be published. Probably you still think it is published.Terryeo 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it is published. Those who do the course get a transcript, a fact you refuse to acknowledge.--Fahrenheit451 19:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that almost all Misplaced Pages editors would reject Fahrenheit451's argument. There is no need to modify this policy to deal with an idiosyncratic interpretation pushed by a lone editor. I had largely tuned out this discussion because it seemed so fruitless. At this point I call for a sense of the house that the policy is adequate and that the bulk of Misplaced Pages editors are capable of understanding and applying this policy as it stands. I note that some editors have already affirmed such a position. This discussion really needs to end now. -- Donald Albury 11:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Whew, thank you. Terryeo 14:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You are thanking him for accepting your false information. Pretty crappy tactic, Terryeo.--Fahrenheit451 03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Pretty crappy tactic" is uncivil. Terryeo 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Donald. As for the specific Scientology example, I would urge the editors involved to seek dispute resolution, where neutral editors can make comments about that case, which at first glance seems quite straight forward and resolvable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. It's a really bad idea to try to totally revamp policy to deal with the problematic edits and interpretations of one editor. Jayjg 15:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds like an application-enforcement issue, not a policy issue. BUT, if we did want to talk about policy, I would add that we should gnerally try not to rely on dictionaries (except for spelling). User:Slrubenstein

I agree. The document is unpublished. SlimVirgin 19:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I had hoped a small clarification would prevent future disputes because past, similar disputes have happened. Specifically, User:ChrisO cited unpublished Class VIII lectures, much as User:Fahrenheit451 has cited unpublished administration documents.Terryeo 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence the cited lectures are "unpublished".--Fahrenheit451 19:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So this whole thing is part of a dispute about scientology? Tough cases make bad law. We shouldn't use such a dispute as a basis for what our definition of whether something has been "published" is. As far as I can tell, there is no major dispute about what "published" means, and the dispute is not one which ought to be resolved by refining our definition of "published," but rather by the normal methods of WP:V. If Fahrenheit's statements can be verified by sources available to other people, it is acceptable. If not, it isn't, even if it's true. john k 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing begin when Fahrenheit451 insisted that his document was published, when I quoted him text that said it wasn't he essentially called me a lier and implied the quotation from a published book did not exist. Terryeo 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that Terryeo is the product of a culture (namely the Church of Scientology, of which he's a member) which is incredibly bureaucratic, bound by thousands of pages of procedures and dependent on dictionaries to define just about everything. I have the two main official Scientology dictionaries on my bookshelf - they're something like 1,200 pages long. See Study Tech#The Three Barriers to Study for some background on the Scientology approach which I think underlies Terryeo's contributions to this page. As regards the example quoted by Terryeo, I agree that the source in question isn't verifiable and shouldn't be used (and have said so on the related talk page). I completely endorse Jayjg's comments about it being a totally bad idea to revamp policy based on this one case. ChrisO 19:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I consider it uncivil to consider me a product of a culture because I don't bring up the declared status you hold with the Church, a similar product of a similar culture. Terryeo 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think much of the impetus for Terryeo's involvement in this policy discussion is provided by a wish to gain advantage in Scientology-related arguments; discussions here have been followed up by fresh arguments on a range of Scientology article talk pages. It's also worth noting that Terryeo has confined his article space editing almost entirely to Scientology-related topics; his exposure to the wider context on Misplaced Pages is limited, to say the least. This isn't to say that Terryeo is automatically wrong on these issues, but he should bear in mind that an approach which seems natural and appropriate to a Scientologist isn't necessarily suitable for Misplaced Pages. -- ChrisO 19:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You have never understood the simplicity of my statement. I work to adhere to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines because it is my opinion if Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines are fulfilled, if reliable information is used, any and every article, including Scientology articles, will present good, reliable information to the reader. ChrisO has opposed my position in that regard many times and has frequently cited unplished information and used personal website information as a secondary source of information. Terryeo 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Kasreyn's comments over at Talk:Suppressive Person during the original dispute are a propos for that particular dispute: The problem is not that they haven't been published. The problem is that they haven't been published where Misplaced Pages can get to them and cite them as sources. The sources have obviously been published. They are simply not verifiable because they haven't been published in a form where any significant number of wikipedians can verify them. The dispute has nothing to do with the definition of "published," the normal understanding of which would include things like the lectures in question. john k

I agree absolutely, I don't know why Terryeo has chosen this particular example. It's certainly not apposite to the definition of "published". -- ChrisO 19:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I chose this one because it is most recent Terryeo 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As an editor familiar with Terryeo's editing I can vouch that, to the best of my ability to assess such things, ChrisO's comments above about Terryeo's motivation and his Scientology-informed approach to rules and written definitions are exactly on the mark. BTfromLA 19:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep our characterizations/assessment of fellow editors out of this debate, shall we? Regardless of what I or other editors think about the subject, there is no reason not to apply policy consistently across all articles. If material is published by a reliable source (better if that source is a secondary one, and if not, use caution) and if it is verifiable as per WP:V, that material is welcome in WP's articles. If not, it doesn't. If there are disputed gray areas as it pertains to that specific article, these can be taken through the WP:DR process. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In general, I would agree with Jossi that comments about the motives or mentality of other editors are inappropriate. In my view, this is the exceptional case that proves the rule, and ChrisO is absolutely correct in saying that these matters are "worth pointing out" in the context of this particular discussion. BTfromLA 20:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

While you might think so, Policy says otherwise. Discussion pages are for issues, not personalities.Terryeo 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer, BTfromLA, that these issues are dealt at article talk pages or at user RfCs, but not here. We should not single out a fellow editor, unless that editor is disruptive, and deserving an admonition for such behavior. I don't see any editor exhibiting such behavior in this discussion. Maybe a bit persistent, but hey, that is different.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Terryeo has been an extremely disruptive editor in the Scientology pages, but if you don't see the relevance of that here, I certainly don't want to derail the discussion. There's no need for a more precise definition of "published." Have we reached a consensus on that at this point? BTfromLA 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not an admonition - merely advice to Terryeo that he might want to take into account the fact that his perspective is possibly a rather narrow one. -- ChrisO 21:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have a better method for applying Misplaced Pages's policy to editors who refuse to recognized the unpublished status of some documents, who insist that personal websites belong in articles as secondary sources, and who cite newsgroups and blogs, by all means, tell me about it. Terryeo 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that it's quite useful for anyone here who is not familiar with the context of this debate to be made aware of it. I arrived here having no idea what was going on, or why Terryeo was arguing the way he was. Knowing that he is a Scientologist, and that this argument arose out of a dispute on a scientology-related topic makes this considerably easier to understand. At any rate, I fully agree that there's no need for a more precise definition of "published," and that the dispute over the particular issue which seems to have brought about this discussion more clearly belongs in the domain of WP:V. john k 21:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Legal definitions of "published" refer to restricted distribution of this nature as "unpublished." Govt departments distributing confidential documents to certain people doesn't count as "publication," for example. I would see the Scientology example as akin to that. SlimVirgin 21:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Only it is not the same thing or closely similar. One is buying a course and receiving a recorded transcript that is one's property. Here is an image link of a promotional leaflet and for the course I refer to.--Fahrenheit451 03:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Buying the course, in that case, does not give you possession of a transcript. Terryeo 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Doing the course does give one ownership of the lecture transcript.--Fahrenheit451 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) The most recent phase of this discussion started when User:Donald Albury that the current policy is adequate as it stands. There were then posts from seven editors agreeing that if a distributor imposes substantial restrictions on who can receive a work, the work is not verifiable for Misplaced Pages purposes, and that current policies and guidelines are sufficient to deal with any editor who cites such material in Misplaced Pages. I've always been ambivalent about whether there should be a policy or guideline change, but I've been firmly opposed to the wrong changes. The personal experiences that make this an issue for me have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with quasi-published information in the electronic design software arena. I'm content to leave the policies and guidelines as they are. --Gerry Ashton 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I purposely did not review any of the edits and background to this so that I could stay objective. Regardless of how Terryeo might have behaved or what his motivations are, he is right. Whatever this document is, it is not held in either a public repository (like a library) or for sale to the general public and so it cannot be verified according to WP:V, pure and simple. plange 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Refraining from review of edits or background information does not imply one will be objective, but it can lead one to be deceived and naive. The edit issue Terryeo has cited was settled 25 July 2006, and dredged up by him for his own propaganda purposes on 7 August 2006. We were discussing a possible definition of "publish", here. If you were to make an honest statement, you could have stated that no public repository has been identified or sale is exclusively to those individuals enrolled on the particular course. Your rehashing of this issue is unnecessary.--Fahrenheit451 07:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To conclude this particular thread, Terryeo was unable to provide any real examples of a publication that fit his POV definition of "publish". His arguments for this definition were demolished. He then was allowed to change the subject and interject an attack on myself. That attack was dissapated and the status quo of "publish" remains. --Fahrenheit451 09:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit, this is not the place for your statement. And it is completely untrue. I believe you still don't understand that your edit of an unpublished citation prompted this convoluted affair. Publish means "to the general, broad, public". Terryeo 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, my statement is verifiable fact. You refuse to acknowledge that your POV definition of publish started this whole mess. Publish does not mean "to the general, broad, public" and there is a consensus against your definition.--Fahrenheit451 19:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why this discussion started

This lengthy discussion originated by Terryeo claiming that the word "published" means "published to the public" and "public" being some abstract generality as "everyone". The edit cited by Terryeo I let go because this published material is of rather restricted distribution so as to be difficult at present to verify. That is the simplicity of it. We don't need any further rumor-mongering from Terryeo about how this developed. I have no objection to ending this discussion. However, I think that we have not heard the last of this distorted POV definition. Dispute resolution process, here we come.--Fahrenheit451 03:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I stated many times, "broad, general public" and once used the word, 'everyone' as an illustration of 'anyone'. The discussion begin because more than one unpublished document has been used in the Scientology articles. In the most recent situation, editors (at last) agreed the document wasn't verifiable but it was never published. To regard the unpublished status as a stop, rather than hammer through "can it be verified" would have vastly simplified the situation. And, there is simply no need for the snipes which you take at me with "rumor - mongering" and "product of a culture", etc. It is even against policy to make statements of that nature. Terryeo 19:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, this discussion began because you promoted your very faulty, "published to the public" definition. The issue you have dredged up for your own purposes was settled on 25 July 2006. Your generality of "editors agreed" is nonsense. I never sniped at you with "product of a culture". That is another rumor you are starting and I object to it. You are hereby advised to Knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "published" — Resolved, we don't need another one, an informal poll

In an effort to get to the finish line:

RESOLVED: There is no need for a Misplaced Pages-specific definition of the word "published."

• Endorse. -- BTfromLA 05:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. -- ChrisO 07:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. -- john k 12:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Jon Awbrey 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. -- ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. SlimVirgin 15:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Terryeo 19:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse.--Fahrenheit451 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. If relevant, such a definition should be established on an article-specific basis. -- Deco 19:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Another informal poll: Editors to take their personal disputes elsewhere

• Endorse. -- ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse.--Fahrenheit451 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. (As a reminder--I don't think anybody actually proposed this ought to be a site for personal wrangling) -- BTfromLA 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. --Siva1979 19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Terryeo and Fahrenheit clearly have a feud going on; this whole debate has been an extension of that. IMO, they should take it to dispute resolution rather than dragging the rest of us into it. -- ChrisO 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Present. --Gerry Ashton 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Not sure. Much of this discussion is only relevant to the specific content dispute at the article they're conflicting over, and they're trying to make it a matter of policy. Some of the discussion is vaguely relevant to the policy itself, but most of it should just be copy-paste moved to an appropriate talk page and followed up there. Deco 19:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. There's plenty to do during the best of times. Terryeo 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• This talk page is Watchlist spam, it changes every few minutes. Go away. SchmuckyTheCat 23:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The true meaning of Original Research

Dear friends:

Forgive me for being obtuse, but I always thought that the better encyclopedias were composed of articles written by experts who did original research in determining what points to emphasize, what authorities had to say in the field and just what the article MEANT to the readers of the encyclopedia.

Encyclopedia articles are quite often signed, either with a full name or initials.

Obviously I can't argue against this established policy of Misplaced Pages, but I don't fully understand it, even though I try to follow it in my Wiki-editing and Wiki-writing. Every writer picks and chooses his material, so there is inherent "originality" in what he accomplishes.

Second point, this dictum ("no original research") is more honored in the breach than the observance. Click on "Random article" in the column at the left, and you will probably get a screenful of original research — or a screenful of words that very seldom are backed up by any sources. Just try it.

As an aside, I refer you to Jonathan Club, an article which I just completed and in which I attempted to source every fact. Well, I didn't succeed, because there are one or two sentences that are still unsourced and (gasp!) an interpretation of the material that surrounds them. If you can figure out a way to write the piece without the (very few) interpretations, I would be glad to hear them — or rather, see them.

I hope to hear from you on both of the above points.

Yours sincerely,

GeorgeLouis 07:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re 1988, see I'm hard at work looking for a source to determine if the 1940 chicken dinner was served with mashed potatoes or rice. Precis 08:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Precis, for going along with the humorous intent of the second part of my note, although your footnote goes to the wrong source, and maybe that was intentional. And now, my friends, can we not address the first part? Do not printed encyclopedia articles often have an author's voice, and don't they involve what WikiP calls "original research" that involves sorting out facts and reaching conclusions based upon them?

Sincerely,

GeorgeLouis 14:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many articles lack sources, but editors are working hard at referencing these. If you see such an article, you can add {{unreferenced}} at the top of the article. This will tag this article as one that needs sources. As for your question about what "original research" means in the context of this project, I would argue that the Policy in a nutshell is a good answer: "Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, to answer why that is, the encylopedia knows who to go after if they get things wrong. They also interview and hire the best people so they can trust that they are the subject experts needed. This here is a completely different animal. Anyone can edit, we don't ask for credentials, editors come and go, and so the way to protect WP is to ask no WP:OR please and cite everything.plange 15:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I suppose criticizing the "No Original Research" rule is much like criticizing the doctrine of the Holy Ghost (or Spirit, if you like) in Catholicism. One may not understand it, but one must accept it.

Yours sincerely,

GeorgeLouis 19:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Just think of V, NPOV, and NOR as the Trinity. Precis 22:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But, we very much want you to understand it, so that you can provide informed support for it. There is an acculturation period for most Wikipedians. It is not always immediately clear why we do what we do and the way we do it. Part of that acculturation probably comes from watching what happens to articles when editors ignore the policies. Experience shows us that the best way to produce quality, useful articles is adherence to the policies. We have no way of verifying who contributors are, or what their expertise is. Therefore, we cannot take anything that someone says on just their say so. The only way we can judge the validity of material added to articles is to look at the sources cited for it. If you still have questions about any of the policies, ask them. We'll try to answer them as best we can. There is no penalty in Misplaced Pages for questioning policies, or suggesting changes, as long as the discussion stays on talk pages until consensus is reached. Making edits against policy, or trying to unilaterally make significant changes to policy, will get a reaction, however. -- Donald Albury 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Friends, I know exactly what the rule is; the problem is that, carried to its logical conclusion, every single sentence would have to be sourced, and we all know that is just not happening and will not happen. Take this section from Yoyogi Park, for example:

What is now Yoyogi Park was the site of the first successful powered aircraft flight in Japan, on December 19, 1910, by Captain Yoshitoshi Tokugawa, following which it became an army parade ground.

Yeah, who said? No source. And the reference at the bottom of the article leads to a Web site in Japanese. Yet the article as a whole is a good contribution to WikiP if you don't read Japanese. None of the editors who have worked on it during the past two years have flagged it as unsourced. Should it be? Take a look at it and let me know. Thanks very much for your time. I appreciate your comments. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 05:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You could insert the source , unless this site lifted its info from the WP article Yoyogi Park. Thanks for the eagle eye. If you find any more unverifiable material, just let us know :) Precis 07:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Precis, that is a very interesting page (in English, too), but it does not say anything about powered aircraft flights, Capt. Tokugawa or army parade grounds. As I mentioned above, you could click on any "Random article" and find similar unsourced material, so the stricture against "no original research" is really a hollow one. I really do not think most WikiP writers know HOW to credit their material within the body of their work (if they care to at all); college professors have struggled for decades to help students learn this technique, and I think most high school teachers have just given up.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think in general one should distinguish between an article being cited and an article being original research. If one started an article on Charles Dickens, and wrote, without giving any sources, "Charles Dickens was a 19th century English novelist who wrote Oliver Twist, David Copperfield, Great Expectations, and many other novels," that would not be original research, it would just be unreferenced. Those are not the same thing. I think one of the basic issues here is that one should assume good faith. If a change looks like a good faith contribution, and one's own knowledge is not sufficient to tell one if it's true or not, one should assume the person is not inserting original research (or wrong information). One can still ask for sources, and the more dubious the particular piece of information seems to you, the more you should do this. Something is not original research because it isn't sourced. Something is original research because it can't be sourced. john k 17:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I do think GeorgeLewis has a very good point, though I don't think it has as much to do with the policy of banning original research as it does with a tendency toward absurdly literal-minded application of WP:NOR and WP:CITE. Some editors seem to think that any original sentence constitutes original research, and that every fact, no matter how uncontroversial, requires a citation. I've seen those policies used as a sort of cudgel to combat contents that an editor who is an aggressive advocate on a topic dislikes, even when the facts in question are not in dispute. Demands for citations of every detail and every adjective can disrupt the editing process, and--most importantly--lead to ugly, clotted articles, for which the existence of citations seem to trump all other editorial standards. Is there an ongoing discussion somewhere about these issues? BTfromLA 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

<<Something is not original research because it isn't sourced. Something is original research because it can't be sourced.>> This is probably this best distinction I have seen and perhaps should be added to the Original Research page, wherever that might be.

I think the distinction can also be made between an article that states "The speed of light is 186,000 miles an hour" (no source needed because it is common knowledge) and "The Ferrari was traveling 96 miles an hour when it hit the light pole, according to information taken from the onboard data recorder and quoted in the police report at www.malibucops.com/Ferrari.html" (source needed).

We can't go around needing a citation for "George Washington wore wooden false teeth," but we would need one for "Sammy Stutz, the drummer in Four Little Dood-Heads, carried a four-leaf clover for luck at each concert in months beginning with the letter J." It's really up to the article writer (and the editor) to be able to make a distinction between commonly known data that needn't be sourced and lesser-known data that should be sourced so that readers can look it up themselves if they are so minded. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 20:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, George has a question and a criticism of the policy. As to the criticism: I think the apple pie exception, which is pretty well-underdtood by experienced editors, takes care of what seems to be your concern for extreme applications of the poplicy. As to your initial question, your question contains the answer. Other encyclopedia articles are written by recognized scholars and vetted by boards of recognized scholars. Misplaced Pages is not. The NOR rule is the main compensation for our not having articles written by established scholars nor vetted by an editorial board. It is one way we police ourselves. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And there is a very good reason why we should provide a source for everything, because George Washington did NOT wear wooden false teeth.George Washington's false teeth not wooden -- Donald Albury 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a funny article--how his false teeth will allow unappreciated aspects of Washington's personality to be expressed in sculpture beats me. But I disagee that everything should be sourced--there needs to be some threshold. Facts that are neither a subject of legitimate dispute nor key to further research on the topic at hand shouldn't be subject to reflexive demands for citations--it adds needless work to the editing process and makes the articles more difficult to read: gobs of irrelevant citations don't help the articles. For example, let's imagine that an article on Dentures includes the following bit: "George Washington, the first President of the United States, is a man whose false teeth became the stuff of legend; the image of Washington's wooden dentures is familiar to generations of American schoolchildren, despite the fact that Washington's teeth were actually carved from hippopatamus ivory." How much of this needs to be sourced? The story of the so-called wooden teeth being identified as ivory, certainly. But do we need to verify that the story of wooden teeth was told to schoolchildren? Or that Washington was President? Or that he was a man? At some point, the citations become counter-productive and even silly. BTfromLA 01:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll be telling me that he never cut down the cherry tree next! ;-) -- ChrisO 15:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Reputable publications -> NPOV_NPOV-2006-08-09T22:13:00.000Z">

- General issue: I'm a bit puzzled by what that section is doing on the WP:NOR page - I'd say it's mostly about the subject of WP:NPOV, and it even doesn't have a direct bearing on WP:NOR. I think that something must be done about it, but I don't know what. Suggestions are welcome!

- Particular issue: In one article referral is made to a journal called "AAPPS Bulletin". It's available on the web http://www.aapps.org/ , thus it's certainly verifiable; and its editor suggests to be well-known in Asia. However, I could not find it catalogued or referenced in Web of Science, nor in Scopus. Thus I fear that it's so unknown that isn't even not reputable. What to do with references to it? Harald88 22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)_NPOV"> _NPOV">

It looks like a substantial website. Certainly it is attributable, it boasts have subsiderary memberships. Terryeo 04:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly: that makes it certainly NOR. However, as I pointed out first, this particular section is not really about NOR, but about reputability. Can a journal that apparently can't be found in any journals database be claimed to be reputable? Harald88 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, it says "AAPPS Bulletin" not "AAPPS Journal". You're looking for journals in all the wrong places... FeloniousMonk 20:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

More reasons for sourcing

If anyone still doubts the wisdom of requiring reliable sources, consider the problems that Wired magazine is currently having with its freelancers manufacturing quotes and information , not to mention all the other recent scandals in both print and television. If professionally edited publications are having to tighten their own practices, the world's largest freelance-edited encyclopedia's policy on sourcing looks positively progressive and ultra-responsible. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Were Misplaced Pages to require editors to register, as opposed to any anon editor from any IP address, anywhere, anytime; our articles would have less vandalism and we editors' efforts would be better spent. Terryeo 18:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We're not disabling anonymous editing. This comes up every week at the Village Pump. Deco 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Trolling

Not sure why the warning against trolling is on this page. I don't see any sign of it, nor any indication that this page is more subject to trolling than any other discussion page. Am I missing some history here?

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There's been some in the past. Mostly archived now. The issue is that NOR was created partly to prevent trolls and cranks from posting original theories on WP; when they do, it is removed and NOR is cited. They come here and attempt to argue the problem is with the policy and not with them. Deco 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a popular and common motivation to sprinkly discussion pages with warnings, constraints and other such triva. Any editor can do it and many editors seem to like doing it. I, for one, don't think they are worthy of discussion space since every discussion space falls under exactly all of and every policy and guideline. Such warnings are drivel, distracting to the allocated discussion space and useless. Terryeo 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Pages over 100K