Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 3

message: Hi Vkokielov, I've partially reverted the changes you made. I've left your addition to the intro, which I didn't mind, though others may disagree, as follows:
In order to become known as a reliable source of information, Wikipedia has to impose this restriction on its content. Another way to consider it: what do you expect from your grocery store? Your grocery store doesn't make anything: everything it sells to you, it buys from someone else. Now ask yourself: would you buy from your grocery store if you so much as suspected that what you were buying came from no one knows where?  So, too, here at Wikipedia. It's an obligation of Wikipedia to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable.
I've restored your deletion of the "if you have a great idea that should become part of" section, because I think it explains the position quite clearly, but I've deleted "great" because, as you and El C pointed out, it might be seen as patronizing or sarcastic. I also restored your deletion of the sentence saying we'd have to turn away Pulitzer-prize-level journalism or Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it here first, as that gets the point across well.
I deleted your grocery story/FDA analogy, which you had replaced the above with, as I felt it labored the point and that the analogy broke down in places, as follows:
If you ran a grocery store, how would you decide from whom to buy your food?  Which questions would you ask Mr. Doe if he came to you and said he will sell you the same food you sell now for less than anyone from whom you would buy?  If you have an original idea, Wikipedia cannot - and will not - publish it, unless it is good to eat.  The only way to make sure it is good to eat is to send it through the FDA of original ideas - the professional publications.  Now, of course not every food the FDA forbids will kill you; and so not every original idea which you can't publish is not worth publication.  But it would be unfair to sell you beef from England just because mad cow disease doesn't happen very often.  In other words, the fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean that material is bad – Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia.
Others may disagree with me, so of course feel free to restore if that's the consensus. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:05, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
: Thank you.  Don't expect me to argue.  I'm not sure what I'm doing, editing a Wikipedia policy page.  ...e...what am I doing, editing a policy page?!! ;)  --VKokielov 06:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, VKokielov. Well, I'm glad you said that and not me. ;-) Actually, we are allowed to edit policy pages, but the chances are high we'll be reverted unless it's a minor change. It's always best to argue these things out on talk pages first and get some kind of consensus. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:37, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
I notice the analogy has something of a loophole, which carries through to the wiki case. Imagine wartime. Goods are scarce and people are desperate to get them. In those circumstances, people will take a chance however dodgy the grocery vendor is. Well maybe the meat was classed as fit only for petfood, but its better than starving, and hey the dog's still alive. This holds true here too. What do you do about a topic on which no guaranteed information exists? People still want to know. Best may not be perfect, but is better than nothing. Sandpiper 19:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Grocery-story analogy

message: How about an article that helps people find quality research for their article, especially in controversial areas? Like that Google Scholar is an amazing tool to find free online scientific papers? Or that blogs about particular subjects often summarize and explain that latest findings and studies in a particular field? Or that prior research is often summarized selectively by opponents in controversial areas (like gun control), so it is a good idea to read what the major opposing organizations present as evidence. Ultramarine 20:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An article about finding research? 

message: I added a section discussing the fact that this policy does not apply to talk pages. While perhaps this should be obvious, I've found that occasionally people cite this rule to support removal of a new user's ideas regarding a subject, which is not only discouraging them from editing but from continuing to think about new ideas. I don't think it says anything that isn't already true, just a reminder. Deco 02:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On talk pages addition 

message: An important policy discussion has started concerning ways in which our content-related polices, such as NPOV, No original research and Verifiability could be better enforced. I've made a proposal to give the Arbitration Committee the ability to consult Wikipedia users who are knowledgeable in   subject-areas that apply to cases before them. Such consultation is needed due to the fact that the ArbCom does not by itself have the requisite knowledge to easily tell what is NPOV, original research, or a fringe idea in every field. Please read my proposal at  Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC#Alternate solution #9 by mav. Content subcommittee and comment. Thank you! --mav 02:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC]] 

message: If one uses data mining technique where one trawls data to see if any links appear and them fit a theory to explain the links, is not considered to be legitimate scientific research. To be scientific research, one is meant to come up with a hypothesis and then look to see if the data to prove or disprove the theory. (Reminds me of a policeman in South Africa who explained to me "By law you have to fire a warning shot. So the first shot hits the man with the gun and the second shot is fired at the ceiling".) Does data mining count as original research on Wikipedia and if so why? Philip Baird Shearer 11:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll need to provide a concrete example as it pertains to Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Why a concrete example let us use a hypothetical example. Suppose that you are looking for all the references for Gorgon so that you can correct a date on the Gorgon page. Using Google you notice that the pages returned show that there is a correlation between the word Gorgon and the geographical spread of the articles returned by the search, so you add a paragraph to the Gorgon page pointing this out. This new fact has not been discovered using "original research" methods, it been acquired via data mining. Philip Baird Shearer 14:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Philip, I only just saw this response. I have too many pages on my watchlist and keep missing things I'm supposed to look out for. I'm not sure what to make of your query. The phrase "original research" doesn't refer to any research method, be it data mining or any other. It refers to novel material: unpublished material, new arguments, the editor's opinion, or a new synthesis of published facts. The key is that everything in Wikipedia must have been published somewhere else already, somewhere reputable. If not, it counts as original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying "original research" does not mean original research? As you will know, "research" has a specific meaning in academic circles (scientific methodology etc). Philip Baird Shearer 13:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Data Mining

message: ie. the examples of Polymath's and Nerd's are obviously individuals interpretations (data, etc...) of these terms and the people who belong to them.  Baring objective testing, no amount of group-agreement will fully make these non-original (baring a defining number of agreements -- where defining number is a proportion of the population "randomly" agreed to be the minimum amount necessary to form a definition -- ie. the circular arguments inherently necessary to define terms -- group-aware non-individual lexicons).
Tell me how to get published!!! (I have no credentials - the entirety of my formal schooling in psychology being Psych 101, collegiate education in general being sophomore/junior status as of 2000 - , though my understanding of certain topics borders on the post-graduate.) If you tell me how to get published, or show me someone/something which publishes and has the intellectual capacity to understand what I am talking about I probably still wouldn't do so, though it would be nice to know.  A significant amount of my ability to understand the world is predicated on me not being able to effectively interact with or interject myself into the world.  How the h*** do I get my ideas and research published in a peer-reviewed journal when I see so very few people as my intellectual peers you **** untermenschen who write these broken rules.  How the h*** does one with no external credentials find the relevant journal to publish in????? I seriously want to know.  Your encyclopedia, by referencing all and sundry (no matter how flawed/error ridden -- and many of them are), lacks rigor, lacks exactitude, and to a strong extent lacks scientific and intellectual suitability.  But that's the point of an encyclopedia isn't it!?!?!?
Aahhhhh...... It sucks to every few months or years actually want to interact with other humans, but finding myself unable to do so.  If i fail one more time, that will be the last time I attempt to communicate with those who lie on the other side of the cognitive divide.  This was a minor rant brought on by profound frustration in both others, and in my inability to engage others.  Disregard or not, though my first paragraph actually does stand on it's own as a critique (note: As a means toward clarification and disambiguation I would rather the examples be deleted or explicitly labeled as idiosyncratic and thus potentially wrong/misleading than have this rule modified to explicitly allow them -- especially for terms such as Nerd that have such diverse and mutually contradictory meanings (thus diverse and potentially contradictory examples) -- either that or segregated via what particular aspect of the article they're referring to).
Abandon all hope, all ye who enter here: unless you're sufficiently similar to those who create it that you can effectively use it, and be used by it.  This is not a place where dialecticals are allowed to form, except possibly as examples defining the term "dialectic". --24.22.227.53 20:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the specific images and examples are of characters/people who have been specifically referenced as nerds in an external source (ie. if fictional have been referenced as Nerds within the fictional world, or by the creators/actors of the fictional world). --24.22.227.53 23:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples are original research 

message: Till a few days ago the paragraph pointing at the importance of this policy read:
This policy is important because Wikipedia must impose certain restrictions to its content if it is to become known as a well-respected and reliable source of information. Another way to consider it: what do you expect from your grocery store? Almost everything it sells to you, it buys from someone else. Now ask yourself: would you buy from your grocery store if you so much as suspected that you couldn't trust what you were buying? So, too, here at Wikipedia. It's an obligation of Wikipedia to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable.
I suppose it's safe to state that Slrubenstein, SlimVirgin and Francis Schonken agree that the "grocery store analogy" was not the best available solution to tackle this topic.
Note also that the "grocery store" paragraph already has been discussed a few times on this page. --Francis Schonken 07:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The grocery store analogy

message: * Don't like the expression "It's an obligation of wikipedia to...". I didn't think wikipedia works with this kind of "obligation" scheme. As far as I experienced policies, guidelines & the whole of wikipedia, I think wikipedia works with things at which wikipedians aim, trying to make that a communal goal. Not the concept of a tamed herd working under an "obligation". --Francis Schonken 07:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a problem with political content and a misunderstanding of the word reliable. For example I have recently been in a discussion about PLO Allegations of Terrorism. Both the lawyers of the PLO and lawyers Israel are likely to be reliable (in the sence of consistently biased) with the analysis and information which they provide. But their sources are tainted by the Mandy Rice Davies test "Well he would [say that] wouldn't he?" because they are not disinterested parties to the conflict. In many articles where there is a difference of opinion, a source from a disinterested party ought to carry more weight than one from a intrested party. Philip Baird Shearer 09:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not erring any reliable version can be presented in wikipedia (note that I'm not saying either of the parties you mention or both of them are "necessarily" reliable - I'm not that acquainted with the topic you mention), and it is best to mention all "equally reliable" sources in "equal measure", including a reference to the source of the information, that's NPOV policy (see also NPOV tutorial for practical help). So, no, I don't think there's a problem with the interpretation of the word "reliable" here. It means the same as in everyday use. Further, regarding "disinterested parties", well of course, if they're more reliable (for example generally acknowledged to be more reputable for being unbiased or whatever other reason), their version of the story should get a greater share, in the "space and balance" sense of the NPOV tutorial. But being "disintrested" is not by definition being more reliable, example: gay marriage is often discussed by a by definition "disintrested" party called "heterosexuals" - would that party "by definition" be the most "reliable" on that topic? I don't think so! So, really, being "reliable" is the adequate terminology as far as I'm concerned. Note that the Mandy Rice Davies test can be part of an overall assessment of reliability of a party. So, yes, this shows probably at least "something" is lacking in the reliability of both PLO and Israel lawyers (which you forgot to mention), but Mandy Rice Davies test is far from the unique & only test for reliability: Oxford press boasting about international prizes won by their professors is equally "Well they would say that wouldn't they", but I suppose other factors indicating "reliability" would have a greater significance in this case - in the mean while I would however check if the Cambridge press had anything to mention about these Oxford professors and their prizes. --Francis Schonken 12:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that a rather doubtful analogy regarding 'disinterested'? To say that a heterosexual is not interested in entering into a marriage with someone else of the same sex (which is what I think you meant by 'disinterested'), is hardly the same as meaning that person does not have personal involvement in the subject. Disinterested means not being involved. In your example the heterosexual might be happily married, miserably divorced 10 times, or hate homosexuals and anything concerning them. Any of these might give the heterosexual an 'interest'. Sandpiper 20:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad #1

message: * Already discussed above on this page. Trying to equal "citable sources" with "reliable sources/reputable publications" just doesn't work: it lifts the "citable sources" concept way beyond its literal meaning - which is confusing. Either there is an understood assumption that "citable sources" has a specific meaning in wikipedia context: as this is not explained or clarified, the least that can be said is that it is confusing too. While there is no need to use a specific wikipedia-definition for "citable sources" in order to clarify the importance of the NOR policy, I really don't see what the "citable sources" expression is doing there. --Francis Schonken 07:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad #2

message: * "citable sources" concept, see Ad #2 --Francis Schonken 07:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad #4

message: * "citable sources" concept, see Ad #2 --Francis Schonken 07:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad #5

message: * Too long for an intro section; where not questionable it consists of redundant repeats of what is elsewhere on the policy page. The least that can be said is that it contributes to the information flow on the page being disorganised/fragmentary, and thus confusing for the inexperienced reader. --Francis Schonken 07:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: General

message: If we know a planet's (or more specifically a Kuiper belt object's) mass and diameter, does it count as original research if I calculate its density, surface gravity and escape velocity? The formulae for that are quite well-known, trivial to derive, and definitely verifiable. However, I haven't yet found a source where such per-calculated data is given for, for example, 2003 EL61. The reason for that is, in my opinion, that the scientific community does not need such plain figures, and if they do, they can always calculate them as I've done. The only places where such data is useful are encyclopedias and, for example, popular science magazines, but the subject is too new for them (except Wikipedia) to include them yet. Personally I think that it counts as plain synthesis of known sources and not an original research as no research paper would consist of just applying three well-known formulae to well-known data in a totally non-original and routine way. What do you think? — Pt (T) 11:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think NOR policy says anything about whether or not calculation by standard formulae is "allowed". There are other policies/guidelines advising wikipedians to perform calculation every time (e.g.) speed data are mentioned (km/h <-> mph), also Kelvin/Celsius/Fahrenheit conversions, etc. If the formulae are somewhat trickier to find or to apply unambiguously you might help your fellow-wikipedians who might want to check the calculation, by giving the source of the formulae and/or by mentioning which parameters were used (e.g. mentioning with how many decimals gravity acceleration constant(s) were implemented,...). And keep an eye on when such data might get published elsewhere, which might help in double-checking your work. --Francis Schonken 13:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Calculations are by their very nature verifiable by someone with the appropriate maths background, providing you are using accepted math; so I don't think it can be considered to be original in any shape or form; since anyone else can derive the same data. What would be helpful to others would be if you put the calculations in the talk page; so they can be checked by someone else in the future. :ChrisG 17:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Simple derivation of new facts doesn't count as original research; it's typical in many theory-related articles, for example, to give trivial results without a reference. It's a good idea to put derivations on the talk page, to help fact-checkers out. However, be wary of creating misleading figures or statistics, and don't add anything that's nontrivial enough to be publishable (publish it first :-). If an article is describing a proof however, I think it's alright to take a proof or proofs from other sources and simplify/combine them. OR is a subjective thing and it's hard sometimes to tell where the line is. Deco 18:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problem with that Pt. We're not supposed to produce a novel synthesis of facts in order to build case, but you're not trying to build a case, and a calculation isn't quite what's meant by a synthesis of facts as we use it here — so long as it isn't a controversial calculation. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
It surprises me, how often questions like this come up (although I take it as a positive sign that people take this policy seriously).  I thought the 'apple pie" example would suffice to make clear what is allowable.  However, I added to that paragraph this: "(1) makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult" based on ChrisG's very clear and simple explanation above.  I do think it is evident that we need to work a bit more on the policy to make it less likely that people will raise these kinds of questions on the talk:page.  I am not sure if this means adding even more to the apple pie/current events paragraph in the intro (I am inclined not to), or to add another section in the main body of the article, perhaps including a checklist, that will help people assuage their doubts about whether they are or are not complying with the policy.  I consider this one of the most important policies we have, but if many people interpret it in a way that discourages them from contributing to articles — especially in the way Pt raises (which to me sounds more like elaborating on or clarifying or developing a point that has already been established), then we are not done with our work of crafting this policy into something really useful. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data about planets — is some calculation allowed? 

message: I have real concerns over this page. While I do not want to see research papers placed into the Wikipedia data because they can not make the grade to get into a peer review journal,  I think that this page is very badly worded and lends its self as being used as a bludgeon in arguments over the contents of Wikipedia articles.
For example instead of using outside definitions of what original research is, this article states: "Original research refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". as it is a statement which has not been published in a reputable publication it can be argued that it is Original research because "original research refers to...statements...that have not been published in a reputable publication". Now I know that one can argue that it is covered by the statment lower down the page under "'A few pages have been created devoted to research into issues related to Wikipedia" but that is tenuous to say the least.
It seem to me from the above NOR statment that any statement which is not a quote with a reference, can be construed as original research.  For example if one makes the statement in an article "The Thames flows through London" without citing a source then it can be argued that it is original research, because the NOR sentence "n some cases, where an article makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult...Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources" still means that a primary source ought to be cited. But if every statement in every sentence has to be sourced then Wikipedia will become stilted to the point of being unreadable.
See the section above on #Data Mining. In that User:SlimVirgin states ""original research" doesn't refer to any research method", yet as I pointed out to her  "research" has a specific meaning in academic circles.  I think the term "Original Research" should be based on external to Wikipedia definitions, like one from the OED (if it exists) or those used by respectable peer review journals like Nature or European Constitutional Law Review (EuConst) to take two which are in different fields and would cover diffrent types of Wikipedia articles.
This of course lends its self to a potential paradox. If one tries to publish an article in Nature which is rejected because it is not "original research" could it be published here? 
Never the less the defintion for "original research" should be based on external definitions   it should not be based on one make up by a few wikipedia editors who happen on this wikipedia page.Philip Baird Shearer 13:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia should have its own definition of "original research"; because Wikipedia defines original research far more strictly than academia. I take your point about statements above and I've amended the policy. Statements and facts are governed by the verifiability policy, not the NOR policy, and are dealt with in far greater detail there. :ChrisG 16:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some concerns with the current  NOR article 

message: "In summary, if the facts, opinions, or arguments you want to include in an article have not been published by a credible or reputable publication, you're engaged in original research." What about lists?  As I pointed out above #Bludgeon any list which is not already in the public domain and appears in Wikipedia as a copy of list generated in a EU memeber country is either already protected under EU directives and so is a breach of copyright or the database directive 
, or if written by a EU resident is original research by the definitions given in this article and those of European directives.Philip Baird Shearer 13:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists

message: "Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data." By definition if any Wikipedia page fulfils the earlier criteria of no NOR, then surly are they not a secondary source because they "present a generalization... of information or data." ?
The phrase "people who do not rely on Wikipedia" can cause a problem. There needs to be something added to this article about following wikipedia links to sources. For example the article Levellers used to contain this reference to the Putney Debates as does The Agreement of the People. However when the article Putney Debates was written user: DanKeshet removed the first referece (I think correctly) stating  in the history of the Levellers article that the "external link already present in our article on putney debates, no need to cite it here, esp. not in a footnote". Yet the wording on the NOR makes no allowance for this very sensible edit. However one has to guard against expecting a person to wade through lots of links to get to an external source which may not exist if the Wikipedia pages go in a cirlcle: e.g. States of Germany->State->State (non-sovereign)->States of Germany! (In this case province would be a better article to link to, but that is a seperate issue.) Philip Baird Shearer 13:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to other Wikipedia pages with sources