Misplaced Pages talk:No original research

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gerry Ashton (talk | contribs) at 00:43, 23 August 2006 (→New synthesis/is this OR?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:43, 23 August 2006 by Gerry Ashton (talk | contribs) (→New synthesis/is this OR?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut

]

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

Welcome to the discussion

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)

You don't have to disable anonymous editing, but vandalism is a problem. For pages with heavy traffic, it's an annoyance, but it doesn't compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages, because the edits are reverted quickly. However, for pages that are infrequently trafficked, vandalism can sit on the page for months before someone removes it. For those pages, you shouldn't disable anonmyous editing, but you should subject it to some sort of concensus voting. Even requiring just one additional user to "ratify" an edit would cut down on a big chunk of drive-by vandalism. Michael 19:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Except for the fact that someone could create two accounts, and use one to 'ratify' the other's edits. -- Donald Albury 23:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Both funny and true. lol. Terryeo 23:42, 11 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)

Why don't you call a spade a spade, and say 'crackpot theories'? There is nothing wrong with originality, but there is something wrong with misleading people. --Etaonsh 08:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How about if I "off" it, then? I love deleting things. GeorgeLouis 05:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No reason why not. If it's a problem, someone will yell at you and put it up again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.45.125.222 (talk • contribs)

I think it would be a good idea to leave it. The latest round wasn't that long ago. SlimVirgin 11:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

These templates probably mean a great deal to the people who place them. But to the people who are doing the trolling, they mean nothing at all. The template didn't cool the hot discussion that went on and on and on. Terryeo 07:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The templates are not aimed at the trolls, they are intended to remind contributors to be careful about feeding trolls, i.e., that the best way to deals with trolls is to ignore them. -- Donald Albury 12:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's not important enough to risk an ensuing fuss if I remove it. GeorgeLouis 04:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed... Michael 02:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: State that "no original research" has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages

Emerging from the discussion 'The true meaning of Original Research'.

Problem: There are types of contribution which are permitted under the NOR policy but which would be categorised as 'original research' in certain contexts outside Misplaced Pages. This is confusing to some users.

Discussion: See 'The true meaning of Original Research' discussion. Some concerns about NOR appear to come from misunderstandings of the policy. Within Misplaced Pages, "no original research" should be understood as set out on WP:NOR and not with reference to other usages of the phrase. In particular, the act of collation of published material, without any novel analysis, would be regarded as 'original research' in some contexts. An example would be the compilation of a catalogue of manuscripts on a particular topic, collated from the published catalogues of multiple archives. Novel collations are an important aspect of Misplaced Pages activity and are not inappropriate provided they include only factual and analytical information already available in reputable published sources.

Proposed solution: To be added either to the 'Expert Editors' section or elsewhere as desired:

'Note that the Misplaced Pages definition of original research is specific to Misplaced Pages and may differ from usages of the phrase in other contexts. Misplaced Pages articles may, and sometimes must, bring together information which is not collated elsewhere. Provided that all analytical as well as all factual statements made could, if requested, be referenced to reputable published sources, a contribution meets the criterion of "no original research".' Happydemic 17:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I know it confused me when I first started here coming from a Master's Degree in Heritage Preservation as it meant something different to me before I got here. plange 17:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... --Etaonsh 19:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. It's jargon, that deserves clarification. Deco 19:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks fairly good, but as a historian who works on historical articles, I'd like a somewhat stronger sense that the information is not selected or brought together in such a way as to present a novel narrative or interpretation, as mentioned in Delirium's discussion with Jimbo. --SteveMcCluskey 01:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Utopian, that. --Etaonsh 02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Happydemic, with all due respect to a newbie, I would suggest you get some experience contributing to Misplaced Pages before you start making suggestions about how to improve its policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In order not to bite the newcomers, I would say rather that while anyone can make suggestions on anything, or edit anything, this article makes up one of the core policies of wikipedia, and therefore will likely take a lot of wikipedia experience to really understand. (and, his suggestion did not seem unreasonable to me) --Xyzzyplugh 23:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone's new doesn't mean they don't have something valuable to add. On the contrary, sometimes new people are still able to see the forest while we're all mired down in the trees. They can have a fresh take on things and be able to see how policies are actually presented without all the "baggage" of knowing what it really means. Does that make sense? plange 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Something I said myself the previous day in the field of Irish spelling]. --Etaonsh 08:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Non negotiable

I don't buy into the claim that the last act of a democratic system is to vote out democracy. I equally don't buy into the claim that the last act of a consensus system is to refute consensus. Wording removed.

In addition, no original research has been negotiated and eventually discarded in the case of wikinews, another wikimedia project. Stating that this guideline would be non-negotiable is therefore empirically false, and extremely misleading.

Kim Bruning 12:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:V just applies to Misplaced Pages as far as I know, so that last bit is not relevent. Anyway since when is Misplaced Pages a democratic system? It specifically isn't. We operate on consensus for the most part... but sometimes consensus is wrong. If there were a consensus to put unsourced libel into an article, would we have no choice but to go ahead and do it? Consensus is not a suicide pact. --W.marsh 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not a suicide pact, but neither should we walk all over it. It's a very bad day when people trod on consensus. Kim Bruning 15:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Please see WP:Is Not. Jon Awbrey 15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Kim Bruning 15:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: WP is not a democracy. It is a proprietary software system that you use under what amounts to a contractual agreement to comply with certain rules, otherwise you can be prevented from using the software. Period. Jon Awbrey 16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

See what Jimbo said today about this. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And I am in complete agreement with Jimbo. My problem is only with the specific way it's been worded, which precludes future maintenance... That might be just a bit of a problem if we want to keep the wiki around for over 100 years (which I do) ;-) See also: Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability, for discussion about the phrasing there. Kim Bruning 16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim Wales says, in the link, 'we are not qualified to evaluate such things,' surely a direct contradiction of his key earlier assertion that NOR was introduced because of 'physics cranks' ]? --Etaonsh 18:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no contradiction. Some physics articles, filled with lots of long words and impressive-looking equations, are true. Others are nonsense. Many Misplaced Pages editors are incabable of telling the difference, and Misplaced Pages has no mechanism to distinguish the qualified from the unqualified editors. The solution is to remove the responsibility from WP editors and place it on reputable publishers. --Gerry Ashton 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So, because some people are capable of seeing that other poor folx just ain't, the one-eyed Jimbo is king? --Etaonsh 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy reading this page, but some of the edit summaries are getting a little smarmy, viz: do try to read it for yourself sometime. Can't we all just get along?

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 18:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Apparently not without having a LAugh Riot first. But seriously, folks, people who have not made the acquaintance of basic WP policies should not be truckin' wit dis page. Jon Awbrey 18:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It used to be that the only non-negotiable policy was WP:NPOV. Then someone introduced that all three policies are non-negotiable. Well, I just don't think that is the intent of our founder. I think that leads to arguements on this page, based on the false assertion that WP:NOR is absolute and non-negotiable. Smarminess results from misunderstandings Terryeo 20:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation indexes

The use of citation indexes, databases which count the number of citations of academic articles (e.g. Google Scholar), seems to be permitable under this policy. Citation indexes are an important tool used in the academic community to gauge the influence of topics, authors, and papers. In the context of NOR, since citations of citation indexes are immediately verifiable (per WP:V), they seem to be categorically no different from normal citations. Any opposition to mentioning them in this policy?--Nectar 10:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of policy is to present the philosophy which can be followed by editors. Editors understand the concepts and then create guidelines which are How to's. This isn't the place to mention that. WP:CITE might be. Various help pages might be. Terryeo 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating theory. Do you have a reference for that? Wait! This is NOR... heh, there's some amount of irony there :-)

Nectarflowed: If you think it'll improve what's being said, I'd say go ahead, this is a wiki. Unfortunately, there's some people who seem to want to lock this page down, however. I'm not sure what they're going to say. Kim Bruning 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, citing the results of Google Scholar for specific criteria seems acceptable so long as the criteria are either stated directly, or if all the editors agree that the criteria is acceptable. What I think isn't allowed is asserting that something is or isn't notable by an arbitrary measure - for example, deciding that an author is only notable if they have 1,000 hits in Google Scholar, versus 999. Or deciding that the term to be chosen for the search should be "apples" or "granny smiths", if there is any particular disagreement regarding what criteria should be used for the measure. --JereKrischel 00:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

For context, JereKrischel is referring to an argument he's made that there's no categorical distinction between general journals that publish 1% of their articles on a certain subject and specialist journals in the discipline that publish a majority of their articles on that subject. (A search for apples is indeed appropriate if someone is looking for articles on apples.) That's a good example of the kind of problem that citation indexes can solve. --Nectar 02:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, what were you proposing to add about these databases exactly? SlimVirgin 17:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Normally, authors of a review of a topic, such as found in Encyclopedia Britannica, would have the professional experience necessary to evaluate which contributions within the subject are prominent and which shouldn't be given undue weight (in the sense of WP:NPOV). Misplaced Pages articles also must do this, and in this context citation indexes offer a verifiable and quantifiable measurement to inform these editorial decisions. For example, citation indexes can be one tool in identifying an academic's most prominent papers, or can be relevant in considerations of whether an argument has significant presence in the literature. The proposal is that citations of these direct measurements of the literature be permittable in footnotes in relation to summaries of the literature. I think this article is actually already pretty clear on these matters and an addition probably isn't necessary.--Nectar 00:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors citing themselves

I have made a change to the policy which now refers to how editors should cite themselves.

I have made these changes as a result of a discussion with Pproctor (talk · contribs) on his eagerness to cite himself.

I believe that basic humility and Wikiquette essentially forbids one from talking about one's own work, as even if in good faith it may be taken the wrong way. I also believe that there are fairly well established principles on such vanity editing. — Dunc|☺ 17:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this policy exists. Can you enlighten — maybe provide a link? Anyway, the idea that all good work has to be published by somebody else really falls short of the mark. For example, I could not have done the editing and rewrite of the Inglewood, California article had I not used a self-published history of that town by Gladys Waddingham. It is thoroughly cited within the body of the article and can be examined by anybody who cares to cast a doubt on any of the facts or theories she presented.

There are plenty of other small-town histories that have been self-published, and what about the printed histories of large companies or organizations like the BBC or Ford Motor Company? They weren't published by any third party, yet they are cited as sources.

The operative feature under which I operate i: "Cite what I consider to be a reputable source and let the reader prove that it is disreputable." (Sometimes, as an editor, that is exactly what I do: I check the source given in an article to verify that it says exactly what the author of the article is claiming; quite often it does not.)

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 18:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

George, thankyou for your comments. I think you misunderstand though. Citing something written by someone else is obviously desirable. Citing yourself (Reflexively) is bad Wikiquette. — Dunc|☺ 19:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Citing yourself is not forbidden, although often viewed with suspicion. It's a matter of citing authoritative and reliable sources. If Stephen Hawking were a Misplaced Pages editor, we certainly wouldn't complain about him making contributions citing his own papers. We would complain about him making new, unpublished statements. Deco 20:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't. It seems in some ways a superior way of disseminating new knowledge than via the route of priveleged access media. --Etaonsh 12:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to change this paragraph:

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

so that it read as follows:

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

My purpose is to

use the active voice, so it is clear who is acting
phrase the policy so that results and references are always considered together, and avoid any implication that one should be added without the other
clarify in the last sentence that the expert editor is asking that something be done, and the sentence is not talking about something that already occured.

--Gerry Ashton 20:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good rewording to me. This merely clarifies the original intent. Deco 08:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors citing themselves rule change

I am the origin of all this fuss. I got into a tangle with Dunc|☺ over on Raymond Damadian. As he has done before and been censored for, he engaged in all sorts of specifically-forbidden behavior, doing reverts, deleting "disputed section" tags, etc. All without discussion in the Talk page. For some previous history of Dunc's shenangans and a series of editor complaints, see Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture.

I've been touching here since Nupedia. After posting here anonymously for years without incident, I made the horrible mistake of registering and then actually revealing who I am.

Following this, Dunc proceeded to track down and revert/delete as many of my entries as he could find under the excuse of "Vanity", citing the fact that I had refered to my own published works. This sure looks like cyberstalking to me. The lesson I learned-- Cross Dunc|☺ and you will surely pay for it. If anyone but an adminstrator did this, they would be quickly banned.

Keeping calm after all this vandalism, I then pointed out that the rules specifically-allow "experts" to cite their own work, as long as they treat it no differently from any other cite. Having been caught red-handed again breaking the rules, Dunc|☺ now apparently wants to change them to cover his tracks. Good for him, perhaps, but bad for Misplaced Pages.

For example, if Dunc's revision sticks, it gives free reign for people like him to stalk Misplaced Pages reverting any expert who quite legally cited his own work under the present rule. Just like Dunc did to me. And, just like me, these experts will quite reasonably believe they have been vandalized. But this time, under "Color of Law". And, as Misplaced Pages cofounder Larry Sanger has noted, you won't see them here any more.

Similarly, the rule change is unworkable. Experts are few relative to the pages. We only wander through occasionally. Posting anything that just happens to contain a cite to ones own published work on the talk page and then waiting for permission to post it to the main page is just not going to happen. It also sets experts up as unequal-- anybody can cite our work but ourselves. All that will happen is more sock-puppets and anonymous posters. Why register when you can avoid the problem by staying anonymous? I never had any problems until I actually registered.

So what, You say--"Experts" are all just stuck up elitist A$$holes full of themselves and ready to tell you about their degrees and stuff in a way guaranteed to make you feel inadequate. Certainly arguable, but irrelevant. In fact, "Experts" provide the check that keeps Misplaced Pages credible. If we have to tiptoe around the likes of Dunc and his ex-post-facto rule change, we can find much better things to do. Pproctor 21:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to before

In line with the reasoning above, I did a revert to before with the additional note that the "Experts can cite their own works" provision is to equalize their second-class status in not being able to cite their own works, even if these otherwise meet the criteria. Pproctor 23:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a better, more compact version. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's always a question of 'experts' as such. If one happens to be at the boundaries of knowledge in an under-researched subject, it is quite possible to be innovative without laying claim to priveleged status. I, for example, coined the acronyms 'SS' and 'SR' ('simplified spelling' and 'spelling reform' respectively) in a field in which ongoing discussion seemed to be crying out for such abbreviation: but I don't feel that these, or my other coinings, make me an 'expert.' Or am I being too humble? --Etaonsh 16:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I for one am firmly opposed to this policy in any way discouraging expert editors from citing their own peer-reviewed works. This would pretty much cut out all of the leading experts in each field, as these experts would be neither capable nor desirous of posting reviews of their field that ignore their own work. We need to be more welcoming to experts, not less. Snottygobble 11:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, giving up on rational discourse, some editors do everything they can to drive off experts who differ with them. In my personal experience, this can include frank acts of vandalism and sabotage. Something should be done about such "fools and trolls" in Larry Sanger's apt phrase. But it probably will not be. Pproctor 14:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a general encyclopaedia, for a general audience, and we are non-expert editors. We cannot be expected to judge the difference between an expert original synthesis and an eccentric one. Jimbo has specifically clarified that even original syntheses from secondary sources are forbidden. Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of first instance, I for one am comfortable with that. Expert or not, if it's not verifiable from cited secondary sources it's not for Misplaced Pages.

There is a quite seperate problem with excessive emphasis on certain areas within an article, which represent a significant minority (but still a minority) view. Here I have seen subject experts driven off by trolls promoting minority views. Just zis Guy you know? 14:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your first point is not an issue. Incidentally, I personally believe "stating the obvious" is not original research and intend to propose this for discussion. Nor is there a particular problem with experts operating under the same rules as everybody else. Bring it on, just as long as the playing field is level. The rule at issue just establishes this. At present it merely removes expert's second class citizen status under the "vanity publication" prohibition and allows them to cite their own published works at arms length, just like everyone else can.

As for your last point. I just got driven off from Raymond Damadian by trollish behavior. ( Yes, Dunc, you win, FWIW.) This includes searching out and reverting everything he could find I had posted on Misplaced Pages. As part of Dunc's pattern of harassment, he also submitted for deletion a bio I had just put up and had not finished. As noted in his post above, Dunch's excuse was that I cited my own publications. When I pointed out that under the rule he proposes to change, this is perfectly OK, he comes here and proposes to change the rule. It is such kinds of "arguement" that I object too. Pproctor 16:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Stating the obvious is rarely an issue. If it truly is the obvious, it is trivial to verify; most of the listed sources for the article will surely support statements of the obvious (we do not have to have every source linked as footnotes to individual statements, after all, we can also include sources in the References section which support the article as a whole). Citing your own work as a source is likely to cause problems per WP:VAIN, but if there are good quality syntheses which also cite your material you can cite them without trouble. As Dunc said, If you want to make a change that in any way might be interpreted as self-promotion, you need to discuss it on the talk page of the article first. If your edit is valid, someone else will do it for you. Like I said, we cannot tell the difference, as non-specialists, between an expert and a POV-pusher. I happen to think that Robert Hooke is unjustly under-recognised, and I have Robert Gunther's books on Hooke as a source, but Gunther was a huge fan of Hooke's and you have to treat what he says with a little scepticism, just as you must take Hooke's own statements with a grain of salt. Just zis Guy you know? 16:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Line?

I'm new around here, or at least my account is new. But I've been using Misplaced Pages anonymously long enough to have learned about some of its policies beforehand. And I had a question about this, one of the holy trinity of Wiki policies.

Let's say we have John. John decides to make the article List of Fictional Characters with Widow's Peaks. Ignoring the fact that this is flgarant listcruft, on the surface is seems to violate WP:NOR, since I doubt there is a compendium of the sort John has made in any (reputable) source. However, since one of the things the NOR article says is that synthesis in the context of the article is okay, John could simply cite a source for every character in the list which proves said character has a widow's peak. This seems agreeable.

Now we have Scott. Scott has used prior scientific knowledge to craft a grand unified theory. Instead of doing what a sane person would do -- publish the article in a peer-reviewed journal and reap in the mountains of acclaim within the scientific community and without, he instead makes the Misplaced Pages article Scott's Theory of Everything. Obviously, despite its status as nobel-level science, it cannot be accepted in Misplaced Pages until an outside source has verified it. But if all John did was synthesize previous verified knowledge and used it in the context of the article, what's wrong with it in the first place? It doesn't seem to be outright original research. Where is the line between synthesis of a secondary source and the creation of a primary one? And how much does WP:Verifiability weigh into situations such as these? Thank you for your time. --The Sultan of Surreal. 13:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer one idiosyncratic posting with another: the only problem I have with 'Scott' arriving at a valid Theory of Everything and democratically posting it here, first, rather than some exclusive scientific journal, is not his claim to have unravelled the underlying theory behind the cosmos, but the suggestion that said theory is somehow his ('Scott's...'). --Etaonsh 17:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, the title of the article was only to elucidate a point (and for humor), but I am absolutely sure that Scott's GUT would be deleted as per WP:NOR. Should it, though? --The Sultan of Surreal. 19:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Failure to Communicate

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Unfortunately, many non-scientist Wiki editors are clearly not aquainted with how consensus is reached in science or the way scientific review articles ( Which are fancy versions of what Misplaced Pages does ) operate. As Larry Sanger notes, this "mismatch" between their expectations and the training and experience of a typical "expert" can be a source of much friction and some bad feeling. Been there done that-- As an "expert" I have to keep reminding myself that the audience here has not been brought up in my particular (but not exclusive) tradition of intellectual discourse and quell my frustration.

In a review, a researcher surveys the literature, doing, as the Misplaced Pages rules require, "no original research" and backing all assertions by proper references to literature sources. As the Misplaced Pages rule under consideration now allows, he will quote his own research at arms length. Nobody blinks at this and it is not "vanity". Imagine the response if some scientific journal editor had a rule that experts could not cite their own work becasue this is somehow a "vanity publication". First, such a review would completely lack credibility. Second, nobody would ever submit such an article. Pproctor 14:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you give a specific example of where someone deleted your including a citation to a çn article you published in a peer-reviewed journal? 200.110.89.159 17:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

One example, among several--Look on the history page of melanins for any changes made by Dunc Pproctor 17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Pproctor, people are allowed to cite their own published work, so long as it's specifically about the topic and is what we regard as a reliable source, and provided it's written in a disinterested tone and in accordance with NOR and NPOV. SlimVirgin 17:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely true and precisely my point. Systematically deleting/reverting anything posted by an expert under the excuse that he cites his own published work is an abuse. First, it is doubtful that you could find a single "expert" here who does not do it in good faith. What are you going to do, hunt down their postings and delete them? Think it can't happen-- I just had it happen to me for stuff I posted in perfectly good faith and entirly in accord with the rules. Pproctor 17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I can see part of the problem. Namechecking yourself always looks a bit off, and redlinking your own name looks very much like vanity, an implicit invitation to create an article on you (well done for not clicking the redlink, though). Also, text like Though published in a major journal, these findings were likely ignored until similar devices were developed about 20 years later looks like the writing of the disgruntled rather than the disinterested. But this Talk page is not the place to air one editor's grievances with one admin, that is a job for the dispute resolution processe. Just zis Guy you know? 20:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is that an admin broke the rules to commit acts of vandalism over a personal conflict. When called upon it, he tried to change the rule he broke to cover his tracks. Clearly, this is a viable issue for the talk page of the rule he is attempting to change. For one thing, I can tell you from personal experience what would happen should this rule change go thru.

As for "dispute resolution"-- The admin was recently censored for similar erratic behavior, drawing a lot of ancillary complaints in the process. See: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture. He clearly did not change his behavior because of this. Pproctor 23:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC}

Until Pproctor starts writing his own article, or describing his cited publications in fulsome terms, I fail to see how WP:VAIN applies. If he is citing items that have been published by reliable sources in a balanced way that does not ignore or dismiss other equally or more prominent published sources, then what is the problem? And even if he does fail to present a balanced view, that would be an NPOV problem, and should be handled as such, not as a vanity problem. If you don't like him red-linking his own name, unlink it. If someone did start an article on him, I suspect it would be quickly put on AfD, and the question of whether WP needs an article about him would be settled there. -- Donald Albury 12:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In off moments, I have prowled Misplaced Pages anonymously with a green-shaded squity eye and virtual editor's pencil in crabbed hand almost since Neupedia. I spiffed technical articles in my areas of expertise when I found something wrong. Interestingly, this was practically never-- just the occasional difference in personal opinion, not worth changing. I interpret this to indicate somebody like me had been there before, from the technical polish, probably lots of times. Forget all this other stuff-- there is a hidden legion of technical experts here that make sure stuff is right. You do not want to scare them off. Pproctor 15:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Donald, what he is doing is inserting text crediting himself for something, and citing his own work in support of that. WP:VAIN applies/ Just zis Guy you know? 21:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The preponderance of trolls pushing their own agendas has led to a knee-jerk reaction to researchers who cite their own works. Nevertheless, I would not object to anyone citing any work published in an authoritative and reputable journal or conference, and would in fact vehemently oppose a motion to remove such content on the basis of "vanity", which is not a policy. Deco 20:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Discrepant Imports of "Primary" and "Secondary"

I did some editing of the two paragraphs following the description of primary and secondary sources. I do not believe I made any substantive change. My intention was to clarify the policy, largely by rearranging a couple of sentences. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: No, the changes are non-trivial and very disagreeable, but it's probably not your fault. Back in sec. Jon Awbrey 19:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: One of the first things that I noticed in WP was this odd definition of "primary source" that I read on one of its policy pages, with a consequential oddness in the value that it imputed to primary versus secondary sources. I think that it probably has to to with the different strokes that different folks in journalism versus scholarship attach to those two terms. Though it has caused a strange undercurrent in many discussuions of sources, it hasn't come up in a really flagrant way till now, so I let sleeping dogs lie, for once. But Cerberus has waked, as it were, and it looks like it can't be avoided any further. Jon Awbrey 19:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, a "primary" source is typically used in the sense of "a source which creates new 'facts' never before seen". An eye-witness report of a crime is primary, the documentation of the sale of your house is primary, a transcript of a court trial is primary. Wjhonson 19:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

However part of your proposed re-wording would state that primary sources must not be used, and that's incorrect. You state "Original research that draws on primary sources is also not allowed." You can simplify this to "Original research is not allowed." But that has nothing to do with *this* page. I think you are confusing research with original research. Misplaced Pages makes a distinction between "collecting sources together to form a coherent article" and "creating new facts." Wjhonson 19:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The version of the policy as of 12:54, 21 August 2006 first states "Original research that draws on primary sources is also not allowed.". It then contradicts itself by saying "However, in some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Misplaced Pages article may be based entirely or primarily on primary sources. . . ." I object to the first statement not only because it makes the policy contradict itself, but because the phrase "draws on primary sources" does not specify to what extent an article may draw on primary sources. It could be interpreted to mean articles should not use primary sources at all.

One could argue the alteration is not as bad as I make it out to be, but it is clearly worse than what was there before, and this degradation was introduced without first being discussed on the talk page. --Gerry Ashton 20:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: This is a serious problem, so let's all take our time and fix it right. One of the things that WP:NOR means is that WP cannot make up it's own private language for the meanings of words already in common use. The terms primary source and secondary source are terms in common use, even if they are commonly used with many different imports, and so Job 1 for us is finding out and sorting out what those meanings and imports already are. Jon Awbrey 20:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: The edit by Slrubenstein was ambiguous, as it could be read as extending the definition of OR rather than drawing on a prior definition, so that will not work. Jon Awbrey 20:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This editing worries me a bit, as you and I were still discussing basic wiki guidelines as it is. Kim Bruning 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research is the creation of new "facts" not citable to any other source. Citing a primary source is not original research (nor is citing a secondary source). Frequently editors will shout "original research" when what they mean is "the person did *research*". Research is not forbidden, it is the creation of new facts that cannot be cited that is forbidden. Wjhonson 20:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Check. Jon Awbrey 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the Chicago and APA style manuals, and thinking of my own experience, I can think of two definitions for primary source:

A source which reports original research
A source which contains quotes or summaries from other sources, but these quotes or summaries have never been used in a tertiary source.

Similarly, I can think of two definitions for secondary source:

A source, such as a review article or book review, which exists mainly to summarize, synthesize, or review other sources
A source which quotes or summarizes a primary source, and which in turn is quoted or summarized by a tertiary source.

These definitions overlap, but there are areas in which they differ. For example, an electronics engineer who reads Donath's article in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, V. CAS-26 No. 4 will see that it predominantly reports original research, but it does briefly summarize the work of Rent. If I quote Donath's summary of Rent, instead of reading and citing Rent's work directly, I am using Donath as a secondary source. I think the NOR policy uses the meanings that I've labeled 1, but I think all the meanings are in general use and scholars routinely have to distinguish the meaning from context. --Gerry Ashton 21:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally I would point out that while Donath's article on his own research is a primary source for that research, his *same* article on his summary of Rent is a *secondary* source for that portion of the article. Wjhonson 21:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

While that article may be a *secondary* source for the work of Rent, it is a *primary* source on how Donath would summarize Rent. - O^O 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

For the *general method* he uses perhaps, but that would go on *his* page not on Rent's page. "Donath frequently uses the pi-beta-epsilon method of summarizing..." While on Rent's page you would simply quote it and cite it. Now, in the case where there are conflicting secondary sources, I always go for inclusion versus silence. "Fred Flintstone summarizes Dino's work as annoying, while Wilma summarizes it as playful and cute." We have room for both secondary sources. Wjhonson 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I see some ideas above that make sense to me, or at least sound familiar to me, but I think overall that it's making things too complicated to drag in mention of tertiary sources. Normally, I think of Classical examples, but that gets us into all the vagaries of trans*lations and whether Socrates said what Plato said he said and so on, so let's FF to semi-modern times. What William James wrote is the definitive primary source for William James' philosophy — the buck stops there as far as that goes. What he wrote about the philosophy of C.S. Peirce is a secondary source for that. And what Bertrand Russell wrote about the philosophy of William James is a (not always very sympathetic or understanding) secondary source for that. I think that is plain and simple enough, and gives the gist of the basic idea. This means that primary sources have a slightly different value in that brand of scholarship than they might have in some brands of journalism, say. They are to be valued as the rock-bottom grounds of grounded research when it comes to questions about what a given writer's writings actually said. Jon Awbrey 02:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein' edit is a good one, and as for the attempts above to redefine the meaning of "primary source", please spare us.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is about 205kB of text above. Could you clarify who is attempting to redefine "primary source"? - O^O 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: No, the intention was good, but it took me 3 readings to guess what it was — we can't afford that kind of ambiguous construction. Jon Awbrey 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages defines primary sources very clearly: "present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations." This has been a stable definition for a very long time and we should not try to rewrite it. My edit in no way altered or modificed this definition. It is unfair to suggest that my edit in any way changed what we mean by primary source. Moreover, my edit did not say that use of primary sources is never allowed. ll I did was clarify the two paragraphs so as to eliminate any possible inconsistent reading of the policy. The policy allows the use of primary sources under very very spoecific circumstances. My edit in no way changed the circumstances under which primary sources can be used. I did not extend the definition of OR at all. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That was my reading as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see this proposed sentence deleted or reworded: "Original research that draws on primary sources is also not allowed." I'd prefer to see it struck altogether, as it could imply to some that there is some class of original research that is allowed. - O^O 18:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted a change by User:jayjg mostly because there is no consensus for the change. A secondary reason is it claims that "Original research that draws on primary sources is generally discouraged" (my emphasis). Draws on is too vague. A perfectly acceptable article that relies mostly on secondary sources might cite some primary sources to good effect. Valid reasons for using primary sources could be to discredit secondary sources that misquote the primary, or to fill in details that are not mentioned in a secondary source but which are of interest in the Misplaced Pages article. If the phrase had been "Original research that predominantly draws on primary sources is generally discouraged", and if the phrase had been agreed to on the talk page, I would have gone along with it.--Gerry Ashton

literary works

I deleted a paragraph about literary works and interpretations of literary works - not becuase it was a bad idea, just unnecessarily wordy. I added literary works to our list of primary sources. The effect is the same, just mor economical Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this:

The relative value of primary and secondary sources with respect to WP:Verifiability depends on the primary topic of the article. For example, when discussing an author's work, what the author actually wrote is a primary source that is definitive on that subject, and it is treated as the most reliable source, over and above what any secondary source may say about it. In contrast, when discussing primary source reports of real events, common sense tells us that a comparatively disinterested secondary source, especially one that collates and verifies many different primary accounts, may be able to be more neutral in its reporting.

because it is unnecessary, argumentative, and violates NPOV. It is better that this policy not address the issue at all, it is irrelevant to the policy because it does not change the definition of primary or secondary source and has no bearing on original research. This paragraph is about weighing the value of a particular secondary source, which is a separate matter. Moreover, the paragraph makes a claim about the weight of a particular secondary source and this is simply the creation of a new policy which is utterly unwaranted. We shouldn´t make new policy without discussing it and I think the proposed new policy here is a bad one. In fact, the question as to whether an author´s interpretation of his or her own work is authoritative is something that has been hotly debated and there are scholars on both sides of the argument. How should one consider an essay by Phillip Roth on the work of Phillip Roth, or an interview with Julien Barnes on work by Julien Barnes (or, what to do with Pale Fire)? This should be handled on a case by case basis, and this policy should not argue for a bias one way or the other. Some scholars surely will claim that Roth´s own commentary or interpretation has precedence. NPOV requires presenting their views in the article. But other authors will argue the opposite and their views too must be represented, to comply with NPOV. NPOV is inviolate. The POV in the paragraph I deleted cannot be made into policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: This policy page is intended to state the WP:Policy of WP:NOR, to help editors understand its proper application, and to explain the reasons behind the policy. I always like it better when Bossy People give me a Reason Why I ought to do a particular thing. All I did was state some of the senses of the terms in question that are commonly used in scholarship, amd I see nothing argumentative or controversial about that. I simply explained standards of practice already in use, from which WP derives its authority and justification for its own policies. I did not introduce the additional issues that you raise. The point is that the publication of a work is a historical event in its own right, and definitive in itself. Obviously, no one claims that what an author says about his or her own work is anything more than yet another secondary opinion about it. Jon Awbrey 18:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Again let me emphasize: The paragraph does not assert anything like "an author´s interpretation of his or her own work is authoritative". That would be just plain silly. Jon Awbrey 18:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jon, you wrote: " ... when discussing an author's work, what the author actually wrote is a primary source that is definitive on that subject, and it is treated as the most reliable source, over and above what any secondary source may say about it ..."

The implication of this is, for example, that material written by a particular neo-Nazi author (whose article I edit a fair bit) must be treated as authoritative, regardless of any criticism or contradiction of it by the London Times.

Rather than changing the policy, could you say which part of that section you feel is problematic and needs to be changed? SlimVirgin 18:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Explanation of Primary & Secondary

JA: Here is the primary source for my last revision of the paragraphs in question, which got mugged by an edit conflict:

Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.

Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.

In discussing the works of an individual writer, for instance, in compiling a bibliography of writings by and about an author, primary sources are works actually written by that author, while secondary sources are works written about that author's life and work by others.
The relative value of primary and secondary sources with respect to verfiability depends on the primary topic of the article. For example, when discussing an author's work, what the author actually wrote in that work is a primary source that is definitive as to its content, and it is treated as the most reliable source, over and above what any secondary source may say about it. In contrast, when discussing primary source reports of real events, common sense tells us that a comparatively disinterested secondary source, especially one that collates and verifies many different primary accounts, may be capable of more neutrality in its reporting.

JA: I think that a careful reading will show that I have clearly not said any of those silly things that some people are saying I said. So the only question is how to prevent most any reader from thinking that I said that. Jon Awbrey 19:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are losing me here Jon, and I am sure you are losing others... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm lost too. Jon, this sentence of yours is clearly saying the primary source is authoritative: " ... when discussing an author's work, what the author actually wrote in that work is a primary source that is definitive as to its content, and it is treated as the most reliable source, over and above what any secondary source may say about it ..." And that is problematic. SlimVirgin 19:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Look, it's really a lot simpler than some folks are making it. Why do we cite published sources? So the reader can go and check what is actually written in that text. That's the basic principle here. The text is the definitive source for answering questions about what's in the text. That's all. Nothing else. The writer can preface the work, and many do, by writing, "This is the greatest work that human civilization has ever produced". The text is the last word for the fact that the author wrote that. It is not the last word on whether that statement is true, and nobody would even think of saying that. Jon Awbrey 19:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you say what is wrong with the section as it stands? SlimVirgin 19:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Trust me, I don't come to any of these Policy pages until somebody drags me here by the whiskers of some tag or template or other. There is a real misunderstanding in the usership about the value of primary sources, and it seems to be this issue about how the value shifts from context to context. I have many times had folks object to the fact that I use a quotation from X to support a statement about the philosophy of X. Nobody in real world scholarship would make that objection, so there must be an extra source of confusion in WP. Some of it seems to be in the current definition of primary source, that makes it seem like all primary sources are suspect almost all of the time. There's even a template somwhere that tags articles for citing too many primary sources, and I have seen that get misapplied, apparently due to this misunderstanding. Jon Awbrey 19:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A series of edits and reverts just occurred which ended up with the phrase "Original research that draws on primary sources is generally discouraged". This is wrong. The use of primary sources is encouraged. It is only when the article predominantly uses primary sources, or synthesizes them in ways that are not obvious to a reasonable adult, that it becomes original research and thus forbidden. Maybe that's what "draws from" means to whoever wrote this, but to me "draws from" means uses one or more words from a primary source. --Gerry Ashton 19:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I picked up on that also. I think that addition has been reverted away, but it appears to have briefly gotten mixed up with the "original author" topic being discussed above - O^O 19:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Which version exactly did you revert to? SlimVirgin 20:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"18:13, 22 August 2006 Slrubenstein" - O^O 20:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I have no opinion on the recent Duncharris change (regarding VAIN). But the Jayjg change would have reinserted the 18:25 Slrubenstein text. Reverting back to Duncharris, which is based on the 18:13 Slruberstain text . - O^O 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

18:25 was a very clear time in the history of this policy; clearer than at any time in the past. Jayjg 22:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that phrase is wrong: often secondary sources misquote and distort primary sources. Thus, alhough for synthesis one should use secondary sources where primary sources are lacking of that, for accuracy it's essential to use primary sources as much as possible. This has been discussed before.

PS: I propose to entirely remove mention of "primary" and "secondary" sources, as it's rather artificial and only complicates the description of the NOR policy. It's all rather obvious without such hair splitting. Harald88 22:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing the distinction between primary and secondary sources will create total chaos. Not an acceptable proposition, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. A "primary" characteristic of Original Research is that it is almost always built on novel interpretations of primary sources. Jayjg 22:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research may be a novel interpretation of primary sources, but not always. It may be a first report of the result of an experiment, or a record of an event. It need not include much interpretation; it might consist of rather raw data that is presented in the hopes that someone else can interpret it. --Gerry Ashton 23:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

New synthesis/is this OR?

I have been telling another editor that a contribution they made is probably OR. However, I am questioning whether I am being too strict, so I am here to try to get some clarity on the policy. Here is the scenerio. This one source says that 6 people have died using mifepristone. This other source says that over 460,000 doses have been shipped for Mifeprex (brand name of mifepristone), and most likely the vast majority of the doses equals one administration of the drug. Now, in the wikipedia article, we give the figure "6 in 460,000" as the mortality rate for the drug. However, I cannot find this figure listed in any source online. Most sources online simply say "less than 1 in 100,000". I have said that wikipedia cannot be the first place to publish the figure "6 in 460,000", but the counter argument is that its simply math. So can we say the mortality rate of a drug is X, if there isn't a single source backing X up, but instead a synthesis of multiple sources? The conflict is being discussed at Talk:Mifepristone. Thanks for your time.--Andrew c 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What kind of encyclopedia is it that questions its right to put two related facts from reputable sources together, and do the relevant math? One that is still finding its way, one is inclined to conclude. --londheart 00:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No wikipedia editor can prove that he or she is an expert on drug distribution. Even if the editor is an expert, there is no mechanism on Misplaced Pages to establish the editor's identity. So, can a non-expert put the number 6 people together with 460,000 doses shipped? I don't think so. Maybe the number does not include free samples distributed by physicians, or used during clinical trials. Maybe it does include doses that expired sitting on pharmacy shells and had to be thrown away. I would want to see a reliable source that puts the two numbers together. --Gerry Ashton 00:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)