Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 8

message: The "citing yourself" section says that you may cite yourself, but only if you're considered a reliable source.  However, the link to WP:Autobiography gives stating your shoe size as an example of original research.
Information from a reliable source is, by definition, not original research, and you're considered a reliable source for information about yourself in articles about yourself.
These rules contradict, unless you want to interpret them in very strained ways.  (for instance, allowing your shoe size if it's on your web page but not if you first mention it in Wikipedia). Ken Arromdee 15:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A source is not reliable for Wikipedia purposes unless it is verifiable. For information from the subject of a biographical article to be included, the information must be fixed in some verifiable form, such as the subject's web site, a published autobiography, etc. The Wikipedia userid George Bush is not a reliable source of information about any of the people named George Bush because there is no mechanism to verify that the Wikipedia userid is actually under the control of a person named George Bush, or if so, which one. Even if an ad-hoc mechanism could be devised for one particular article, the ordinary reader could not be expected to understand or believe such a mechanism. --Gerry Ashton 18:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try me. I'd like to see if I could understand or believe in such a mechanism. Can you do that, please?74.38.35.171 02:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be original research to state your shoe size if either nobody has published that anywhere but Wikipedia, or you publish it in your self-run publisher and that publisher has not gained enough reputation to be considered reliable. 74.38.35.171 02:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing yourself 

message: I've argued against the awkwardness of wiki-shibboleth "verifiability, not truth" before and today realised I was getting nowhere with it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thakur Sher Singh Parmar; so I whipped the better terminology we have here out of my sporran. For this proposal to be accepted as better than the existing policy pages, it has to be more useful in practice, and I very much found it so in this case. (More assessors of that page welcome, by the way, as the "keepers" are springing up from the ground like dragons' teeth, all dressed in red type.) qp10qp 17:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: S'OK. Bingo! Deleted.qp10qp 23:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Woo, I just quoted [[W:ATT]] for the first time!

message: When I first read WP:NOR#SYNTHESIS, I was very suprised because I think I have broken that rule myself and seen it broken many times on wikipedia. Taking the synthesis claims to their logical conclusions, here is another example about analysis of sources. I have written it like the FAQ entry:
=== Example of unpublished analysis of published material===
Facts and statistical surveys can be used (or abused) to argue a conclusion that are not attributable to the original study. Statisticians have methods and criteria for when correlations are valid and significant. Drawing conclusions based on statistical data is therefore original research.
Here is an example from wikipedia:
Although some studies show an inverse relationship between education and religiosity, there are several counterexamples of religious groups among which a positive correlation between educational level and religiosity has been shown.
And here we have a number of facts, all of which are attributable to a study: 
A 2004 study by the General Social Survey showed that in general 30.4% of those with a graduate degree attend religious services weekly or more. This was higher than any lesser educated group. Further the group with the highest percentage of "never attending," was composed by those with less than a high school education.
The use of these facts to support the claim that there is a correlation between educational level and religiosity, is not from the study, but our own. In the wikipedia article, editors that disagree with the implied conclusion of this study have done some original research of their own and added other facts from the study:
However, those with graduate degrees were the least likely to believe the Bible as the literal word of God. Moreover, graduate degree-holders had the highest percentage of a religious preference of "Jewish" in comparison with the lesser educated groups.
The inclusion of these facts, both in favor and against the conclusion, are cases of original research that are not attributable to the cited source.
=== Discussion (of statistical analysis) ===
So what do you think, do these inclusions of fact constitute original research or not? --Merzul 19:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Determining that a statistically significant positive or negative correlation exists requires carrying out a mathematical analysis, and is distinct from dividing people by education and observing how many people answered certain questions with certain answers. It would be original research for a Wikipedia editor to carry out the mathematical analysis; that is a job for the authors of the source. --Gerry Ashton 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If all of the cited facts come from the study (which is the way I read it), I don't see any problem with this (except, perhaps, that it creates a POV that does not exist in the original source... but that's not what this discussion is about).  Merely selecting parts of a published work to use in order to illustrate a point does not constitute OR. JulesH 22:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Introducing a POV that is not in the original source is precisely what WP:SYNT is all about. And while selective quotation from a source is not OR, it is still horrible research. I generally lose any respect for authors that claim Darwin believed the evolution of the eye was "absurd in the highest degree." This is not proper attribution, one should represent the idea presented in the source, not cherry-pick whatever furthers one's own POV. --Merzul 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but the policy for dealing with that is WP:NPOV, and therefore it doesn't need to be addressed in this proposal. JulesH 09:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's OR. Squidfryerchef 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems this is a difficult issue, and whatever conclusions we reach, I will move the above example to WP:ATTFAQ with a clear answer that "this is" or "this is not" original research. Personally, I feel very strongly about this. I think this is original research of almost the worst kind. It is the kind of research that would put serious statisticians out of business. I don't mind stuff like List of songs containing covert references to real musicians because those aren't misleading: you can choose to believe each of those statements or not, and if we can find sources for them, then all the better. The above example, however, is harmful and misleading! It cites a number of facts as implying to support a conclusion, and even if I know enough about statistics to know that it is not that easy to establish correlations, I somehow still think that the argument makes sense and it feels backed up with evidence, and that's what I mean with harmful and misleading, because the evidence are not really supporting my intuitive conclusion! --Merzul 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it doesn't (as I understand it) state any conclusion that isn't in the cited paper.  Now, if it isn't presenting the whole story then that is clearly a problem.  But the problem is one that's already dealt with by WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. JulesH 09:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct that no policy works in isolation, but the current example in WP:SYNT also does not state any conclusion that aren't in the cited sources. The problem is that juxtaposing two cited statements create new meaning: "Jones didn't commit plagiarism", and these implied conclusions are not backed up by any sources. I think it is the same here. --Merzul 12:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis of facts from statistical surveys 

message: So what do you think, do these inclusions of fact constitute original research or not? --Merzul 19:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Determining that a statistically significant positive or negative correlation exists requires carrying out a mathematical analysis, and is distinct from dividing people by education and observing how many people answered certain questions with certain answers. It would be original research for a Wikipedia editor to carry out the mathematical analysis; that is a job for the authors of the source. --Gerry Ashton 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If all of the cited facts come from the study (which is the way I read it), I don't see any problem with this (except, perhaps, that it creates a POV that does not exist in the original source... but that's not what this discussion is about).  Merely selecting parts of a published work to use in order to illustrate a point does not constitute OR. JulesH 22:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Introducing a POV that is not in the original source is precisely what WP:SYNT is all about. And while selective quotation from a source is not OR, it is still horrible research. I generally lose any respect for authors that claim Darwin believed the evolution of the eye was "absurd in the highest degree." This is not proper attribution, one should represent the idea presented in the source, not cherry-pick whatever furthers one's own POV. --Merzul 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but the policy for dealing with that is WP:NPOV, and therefore it doesn't need to be addressed in this proposal. JulesH 09:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's OR. Squidfryerchef 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems this is a difficult issue, and whatever conclusions we reach, I will move the above example to WP:ATTFAQ with a clear answer that "this is" or "this is not" original research. Personally, I feel very strongly about this. I think this is original research of almost the worst kind. It is the kind of research that would put serious statisticians out of business. I don't mind stuff like List of songs containing covert references to real musicians because those aren't misleading: you can choose to believe each of those statements or not, and if we can find sources for them, then all the better. The above example, however, is harmful and misleading! It cites a number of facts as implying to support a conclusion, and even if I know enough about statistics to know that it is not that easy to establish correlations, I somehow still think that the argument makes sense and it feels backed up with evidence, and that's what I mean with harmful and misleading, because the evidence are not really supporting my intuitive conclusion! --Merzul 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it doesn't (as I understand it) state any conclusion that isn't in the cited paper.  Now, if it isn't presenting the whole story then that is clearly a problem.  But the problem is one that's already dealt with by WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. JulesH 09:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct that no policy works in isolation, but the current example in WP:SYNT also does not state any conclusion that aren't in the cited sources. The problem is that juxtaposing two cited statements create new meaning: "Jones didn't commit plagiarism", and these implied conclusions are not backed up by any sources. I think it is the same here. --Merzul 12:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion (of statistical analysis) 

message: Well, I restructured this page, that's just a matter of taste, and can easily be reverted, but I wrote in some sense rather specific guidelines about requesting sources. My main reason is that I wish I had seen something like that when I began editing wikipedia, and in particular the  template, which has a link to the exact section in the talk page, is extremely helpful. There are so many pages with a huge disputed tag on top of the page, and then you click on the talk page link and you don't find what the problems were, etc. The dubious template I think is heavily underused, see for example this edit on BBC, an entire article was disputed because of a simple argument over whether it is the biggest or not! (it was finally solved as "one of the biggest" :) I'm also very pleased with the use of it here, because it let's the reader understand what was the issue, and if some editor who knows more about the issue than I do, they can probably fix it. So well, what was my point? Just having slightly more concrete guidelines for what to do when facing unattributed statements would be very helpful, and also encouraging the use of templates that link to the right sections in the talk page, rather than blanket DISPUTED tags, I think... --Merzul 02:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why haven't my edits been reverted yet? Don't people care about this proposal anymore... Please don't abandon this project, the formulations here are really cleaner than official policy and it could make a difference. Of course we can live without it, and I am quite happy with people's behavior on wikipedia, but it still bothers me that reasonable people can have completely different understanding of the policy. --Merzul 21:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reviewed your changes, and only found one point to quibble about. I changed from never accepting a self-published expert over a peer-reviewed publication to hardly ever. In the FAQ page I mentioned two exceptions: an author issuing errata on his/her personal web page, and fields that have become inactive, and the only up-to-date publications are self-published experts. --Gerry Ashton 21:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, indeed, and I also agree with your last change, I went a bit too soft with adding "harmful", if one is certain that an unsourced statement is wrong, then one should of course remove it. (It will almost certainly be reverted back in, and then one can discuss it :P)  --Merzul 02:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes I made... 

message: As I read the archives, the text requiring inline citations was left despite several strong objections -- I do not see the hard-won consensus that User:SandyGeorgia is claiming.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the "challenged or likely to be challenged" version is likely the compromise position between those who would like to see every fact cited and those who would not. Since it is possible for material that was once challenged to stop being challenged once a citation is provided to the user who requested it, it is not true that a one-time challenge must result in a permanent inline citation. So really it's facts that are likely to be challenged, and direct quotes, that the current version of the proposal covers. CMummert · talk 20:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus?

message: Would people object to changing "should" to "should normally" in the section being discussed?  This would leave a potential for an argument that an inline citation is not necessary in that specific place, but only where there's a specific reason for that.  JulesH 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer  "should usually" as above; but "normally" is acceptable. The unconditional "should" is ambiguous, as the section above shows; and the interpretation as mandate is not consensus, and is not likely to be. I also do think that the distinction between the mandated end and the often prefered means is valuable.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Maybe we can take a time-out and just state our standpoints on the issue of in-line citations in this proposal. For clarity, we could keep this section a bulleted list and not answer each other here, then normal debate can resume below or above.
* I support the original version, but I don't feel this is the most crucial aspect of this proposal, it is simply the best mechanism that is currently available and maybe some day we have things like m:wikicite. The main reason I'm interested in this proposal is because attribution is a better concept than verifiability, not because of the inline citations. In conclusion, I prefer the strict wording, but don't object to the softer proposals. --Merzul 04:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusions?