Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.23.241.25 (talk) at 11:57, 28 September 2006 (added translation sub). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

This is a description of the nature of a select few contributions that have been made to Misplaced Pages which some might consider falls under the prohibition about original research -- and although they involve some degree of analysis, are believed to be not covered by this rule.

Not all analysis is necessarily original research, and some forms can safely and obviously be excluded from this prohibition. Further, in some of the cases below it is not believed that they directly require a citation -- as long as the information that they analyse is properly sourced.

This essay is offered both as a contribution the ongoing discussion -- and as an attempt to help avoid Wikilawyering. The list consists of two minor examples, and one important one; other editors may think of other examples and are invited to add them.

Obvious deductions

1. Any simple mathematical calculation that the reader can be expected to quickly reproduce for her/himself. For example, if given the population and the size of a specific area, then the population density of that area may be included. More complex calculations, for instance involving statistics algebra or calculus, should not be attempted because they require skills that not all readers possess, and involve a large number of steps that introduce the possiblily of errors.
2. Simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should, again, not be included under this case because they require skills that not all readers possess, and involve a large number of steps that introduce the possiblily of errors.

Typos and proofing errors

Almost every book includes a few, some more than others. Claiming that such a mistake represents the truth (either as to what the author believes or accurately describes the subject) is frankly dishonest. I believe that the proper way to deal with them is:

• If at all possible, avoid the problem by paraphrasing the source. People who verify the citation will read it in context, and see that it is obviously an error in the printing.
• If the text must be quoted, either silently correct the typo, or mark it with a sic and explain what the text should read. The best choice between these two options should be determined in Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style.

Caveats to the statements of authorities

Authorities are human, and often commit to print statements that are contradicted by known facts. The reasons for this contradiction can be many: intentional bias or ignorance by the authority, or that the editor needs to perform further research and learn how the authority has confronted these known facts. (Sometimes the facts are discovered after the authority has made her/his pronouncement, and this statement will then need to be updated.)

One example is the writing of Cristovão da Gama: one editor had found the authority stated that the Empress of Ethiopia had sought sanctuary on top of a mountain, and identified it with Debre Damo, known for its monastery. The problem with the authority's statement was that Ethiopian custom forbids women entrance not only to the monastery, but to the mountain itself. The authority could be wrong about his identification -- or he could be correct, but based this on information that this editor did not have access to (e.g., a local tradition).

It is believed that Wikipedians are not mere copyists, bound to repeat simple statements without any critical input of our own. The point of following the intent of the NPOV is to present the dialogue that arises in discovering information, not to mechanically include every possible opinion about the subject regardless of its plausibility. So we do have a responsibility to point out when a given authority may be wrong -- to furnish a caveat concerning what we provide.

A solution is to accurately & honestly cite the authority -- yet mention the conflicting fact or facts in a way to suggest that the authority may be wrong; point to the problem, but do not attempt to solve it with your own arguments. Stating emphatically that because the authority is wrong because of these facts is original research, because you are introducing a novel interpretation of the facts. This caveat may done by way of a footnote or a sentence or two in the appropriate place in the article. Following each statement with an elaborate response that disrupts the flow of the article should be avoided; if the authority needs to be qualified on several points, then a separate section or another article should be created for these qualifications -- with the appropriate citations, of course. But in that case, this is not presenting original research, but deeping Misplaced Pages's coverage of the discussion on this subject.

Original Translations

Text from another language that has no translation into English available may be translated; the same would go for texts available only in corrupt or obsolete translations. Any original translations should be faithful, to the point of literalness; if interpretation is called for, it should be explicited in parenthetical notes. The credit should be (tr:WP). The translation must, of course, be editable. Fair use caveats apply as they do for other quoted texts.

• Misplaced Pages essays