Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 2

message: I have tried to find an answer to this, but can't: in compiling a bibliography, are the originals the primary source, or is the bibliography original research? Is there another category, "observation" perhaps?
For example, suppose I looked at J. G. Ballard and saw a reference to "The Wind That Came From Nowhere". I look on my shelf and see "The Wind From Nowhere". So I correct it. Or, is it only valid if I find a bibliography that someone else has prepared and use that?  It is further complicated because several web bibliographies do list this (presumably) erroneous title, perhaps from a single bad source. 
The same argument applies to, for example discographies, episode guides, etc. Can I produce a track listing by picking up a CD, or do I have to find someone else who did it?
Off topic, but perhaps someone can point me to where it is ON topic: what are the limits on bibliographies? Should they be complete e.g. is there any barrier to moving on from J.G. Ballard's books to a complete list of his short work, and each collection it appears in? A complete list of the contents of each issue of Astounding Science Fiction? Is the level of detail found in http://www.snpp.com/episodes.html and each page directly linked from its episode guide too much for Wikipedia? etc. Notinasnaid 10:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What you raise is covered in the new draft of the policy (still in progress).  You are not making original analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or explanatory claims -- so it isn't original research. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  16:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliographies and etcographies 

message: I can see the reference to the apple pie article was introduced after a lot of discussion but, to someone looking at this page for the first time, the reference does look rather bizarre! I expect it is an echo of the great apple pie controversy. Anyway, is it true that the apple pie article is based entirely on primary sources? For example, it tells us what the Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings has to say on the subject. Even if the primary source claim is right, to me it really doesn't shed any light on the matter. Thincat 16:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure I follow you.  The policy claims that articles need to consult secondary sources.  This is true for most articles, but there are some exceptions, articles where only primary sources suffice and don't violate the policy.  Is it that you do not think this point is clear, or that you do not think "Apple Pie" is the best example?  If the former, can you suggest clearer wording?  If the latter, can you suggest better examples?  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your remarks and I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. Taking your questions in turn. The "no analytic ... claims" if an article is "based entirely on primary sources" is clear but puzzling. Surely if in an article I insert something based on a secondary source it does not affect what claims I may make eleswhere in the same article based on primary sources? I suppose "Apple Pie" is a possible example (but unfortunate in that I think it is at least partially based on secondary sources though these parts may have been added after "No research" was redrafted). As it is it seems rather arbitrary. I actually read through "Apple Pie" trying to see what was especially acceptable about it despite its reputed lack of secondary sources. I was being naïve! For something like a recipe for apple pie it may be entirely unknowable whether one is referring to a primary or a secondary source. However, the "current events" example is a good one and I think is helpful. I'll see if I can suggest a redraft (I'd post it in "talk" first) but I may not manage! Thincat 13:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Apple Pie

message: Scientific articles on Wikipedia benefit from being able to show the actual data.  So for a while now, I have been donating figures to Wikipedia that replot scientific data from published sources.  See: User:Dragons flight/Images.
However, data selection and presentation is something of an art, and data by itself can call for conclusions.  In making this post, I am looking for some community feedback regarding how the policy of no original research relates the preparation of scientific figures.
I am assuming that merely replotting and compositing someone else's data (e.g. :Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png) would never qualify as original research, however there are a number of cases that are more ambiguous than that.
In order to offer the best possible presentation, I have sometimes been creating comparisons among data that may not exist in quite the same form in the research literature (e.g. :Image:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png)  In some cases, I have been scaling or smoothing the data to make comparisons possible.  I believe that all of these manipulations are reasonable and follow well established principles, however, if I am the first one to smooth the data in a particular way or make a particular comparison, then one might argue that it is original research.
Of potentially greater concern is the presentation of scientific data when the data itself calls for a conclusion (e.g. :Image:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr.png).  I've been fairly careful to not draw any conclusions from any of the plots I have made that can't be supported by other published research (though in some cases better documentation of supporting material is probably appropriate), but would it be a problem in Wikipedia, to say that X data supports the conclusions of Y even if neither X or Y actually chose to point out the connection?
Of the plots I have prepared probably the most problematic (on several levels) is :Image:Holocene Temperature Variations.png.  First I am combining data in a way that is strightforward, but has never been done before for this particular set of data, and then I am saying that the average thereof supports the conclusions others have made about temperature changes during the Holocene.  Even if you agree that it is okay to say that X data supports the conclusions of Y, I can understand someone who might still have a problem with allowing that the average of X1, X2, X3, etc supports the conclusions of Y is an appropriate statement.
Since I am asking for community feedback, there is a related, but somewhat off topic issue on which I would also appreciate feedback.  All of the images I have produced are used in articles on Wikipedia, but I have also chosen to use the Image description pages themselves to not only document the data used and describe the construction of the figure, but also to provide some summary of what it means.  One user has objected to me, perhaps paradoxically, that the image description page should not be used for extended description and interpretation.  In essence saying that those details should only be given in the main namespace.  Personally, I feel that since the Image namespace is dedicated to the images that this is the appropriate place for any extended description or explanation of images that might be useful.
Thanks in advance for any guidance.
Dragons flight 21:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
:The crucial test is this: can your replotting of data be used to suggest or confirm a new synthetic or analytic claim, interpretation, or explanation?  If the answer is no, I think you have strong grounds for including the data.  If the answer is yes, then you should represent the data as it is plotted in whatever source you are drawing on.  In the case of Holocene temperature, I don't think it is enough to say that your presentation of the data supports existing conclusions.  If you are the first person to use this data in this way to support the conclusions, well, this is exactly the kind of argument that can be published in a peer-reviewed journal mdash; but not here.  If others have used the same average to support the conclusions mdash; in other words, if all you are doing is making aesthetic changes to the way the data is being presented – then I think you can add this data to Wikipedia. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  16:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure whether the policy prohibits most presentation of published scientific data, but if it does it seems to me to be pretty blatantly a bad policy that would effectively preclude Wikipedia from any usefulness as a science reference.--dsws 19:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Data Presentation vs. No Original Research