| Revision as of 18:28, 3 November 2006 editEdgarde (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,109 edits →Regarding original research.: Academic Publishing Wiki← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:09, 5 November 2006 edit undoFred J (talk | contribs)16,207 edits AdvocateNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| : If you'd like to get started on publishing your ], might be a good place. There's even a process. — ] 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | : If you'd like to get started on publishing your ], might be a good place. There's even a process. — ] 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Advocate == | |||
| Hi, I'm ]-] and I'll be your advocate for ]. I'll read through the discussions and get back to you. / ]-] 09:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:09, 5 November 2006
Request for Comment: Sex tourism
As an editor involved in this dispute, you are invited to enter a statement in the RfC under Talk:Sex_tourism. — edgarde 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding original research.
In answer to your question, yes, participant observation is original research. The exception is if that participants' observations have been published in a reputable source. Additionally, I'll two sections of the wikipedia:no original research policy. First, "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." I think you may be making this mistake, which is indeed a common one, in the Sex tourism dispute. The second is "An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:
- It introduces a theory or method of solution;
- It introduces original ideas;
- It defines new terms;
- It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
- It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
- It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
- It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source."
If people think you're doing one of those, the original research charge gets leveled. The Literate Engineer 17:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you'd like to get started on publishing your original research, Academic Publishing Wiki might be a good place. There's even a peer-review process. — edgarde 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Advocate
Hi, I'm Fred-Chess and I'll be your advocate for Misplaced Pages:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/KyndFellow. I'll read through the discussions and get back to you. / Fred-Chess 09:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)