Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite 5th December 2004 to 5th February 2005)/Archive 2

message: This has made good progress. I think it's much better than what we hope it will replace. I hope to get back to it and contribute within a few days. Maurreen 01:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Good work

message: If published information is summarized and sourced, may not a non-partisan logical inference may be drawn that represents a sensible mainstream opinion, even if no specific published source can be found? To exclude natural conclusions seems artificially constraining. Look at the "name origin" of Mayonnaise and the Discussion at Talk:Mayonnaise. Does Wikipedia intend to exclude such material as "theory"? 
Where several schools of thought are in conflict, logical inference may establish some parameters that a counter-position needs to refute, in order to be credible. For example, at Gospel of Peter an observable, confirmable character of the text is followed by a logical inference:
::"Some characteristics of Peter suggest a place early in an oral tradition. To be specific, the developed apologetic technique typical of the final edition of the Gospel of Matthew and of Justin Martyr, which seek to demonstrate a correspondence between prophetic predictions in the Tanakh and their detailed fulfillments in the fate of Jesus, is quite lacking. A credible assessment of Peter as dependant on the synoptic gospels needs to account for this consistent omission of any reference to the fulfillments of prophecy."
These guidelines might address such cases. --Wetman 06:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think conclusions should generally be left to the readers. Maurreen 06:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Logical inferences

message: I have added several "invisible" comments or questions concerning points that I'm not sure of. Maurreen 06:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: If this is to be reworked, rephrase the following:
Wikipedis is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question.So what is the question and who asked it? The phrasing is awkward. Perhaps:Wikipedia is not the place for any but the most minimal amount of primary source material, however factual that primary source material might be. Primary source material should appear only in short quotations and citations or in summarized form.
Concerning topics of scholarly concern, Wikipedia is a tertiary source ... books published by a legitimate publisher and journal articles ... Concerning any subject that is a matter of academic research, we should exclude unattributed (original) interpretive and synthethic statements.
On topics which have not attracted sufficient academic research, primary source (such as diaries, government documentation, etc.) may be used in addition. In such circumstances, the Wikipedia article is a secondary source.
This would be major change of policy, and a strange one.
What is a legtimate publisher? Is there a list somewhere, or perhaps an Index of publishers whose books are not to be referenced? This just pushes argument onto another issue, especially as reputable publishers (even university presses) sometimes publish assinine books and schlock publishers sometimes publish good material.
Why are there two sets of rules, one for matters of scholarly concern and one for everything else? Does this mean that I can mention that Achilles killed Hector in the film Troy, but not mention that Achilles killed Hector in the Iliad, only mention that in a certain secondary book or article someone claims Achilles killed Hector in the Iliad. What happens when the film Troy becomes subject to academic research somewhere?
What is not of scholarly concern? There are collector journals and hobby magazine and so forth that often contain scholarly articles on areas which are not normally the object of academic study? Books are published in such areas, often very good ones. Why, for example, would it be recommended that one cite a particular author for the information that Christopher Columbus discovered "America" in 1492 but be free in an unacademic article to omit a source for the information that comic artist Jerry Robinson created the cover of Daredevil #5 (Nov. 1941)? The source for the latter is more important to cite, if such a detail is mentioned, because the information is less easily found. All information comes from somewhere. See for example Mario. This article is filled with weasel words and vague claims. But it is no worse sourced than the article Lion (picked at random) and many other articles that some think more central to Wikipedia. But neither article contains any original research of the kind that is forbidden.
The proposed revision seems to miss that one can summarize primary sources and present uncontroversial interpretations, pointing out relationships to other articles and so forth, without doing any original research whatsoever, as original research is defined here. Many articles in Encyclopædia Britannica are just such summaries as anyone who knows the material could write, the kind of secondary material that also fits in Wikipedia. They are secondary material, just normal, standard, vanilla secondary material as found in numerous sources, the kind of thing that knowledgeable scholars dash off in without much thought. People don't write original encyclopedia articles about Napoleon, Joan of Arc and Lion. They mostly just include the secondary information that is found everywhere.
Also, again and again in the areas I mostly write in, I find that going back to the primary sources and creating an article that summarizes and discusses those primary sources is far better than basing my article on changing scholarship. I want to provide information from the original source material that allows a reader to understand scholarship the reader comes across based on such primary data rather than to get deeply into tertiary material. Once that foundation is laid, then discussion of tertiary material can be added to an article. But first provide the secondary material (and even primary material) on which the tertiary material is based, and as much as possible present the primary and secondary data unbiased and raw. Pausanias says this, but Apollodorus says that, and so forth. Write the secondary material based on the secondary material and be unintelligent about it. Then afterwards add what modern scholars agree on or debate about on the matter of provenance, meaning, relations to other material, possible historic truth, and so forth. The numerous new theories that come and go are often just grist for the publish-or-perish mills.
The current rules prohibits original research whether an article is secondary or tertiary, and that should be enough.
Diaries and government documents are forbidden to be cited, if they become the subject of academic research? That seems absurd to me. Does this mean I shouldn't cite Thucydides or Pepy's Diary or Caesar's Gallic War directly because I must be only tertiary. But I and any editor will still select among tertiary sources. Bias will find its way.
I have a feeling this draft is an attempt to solve some particular difficulties, but one which more rules won't solve at all. The current rules would be enough ... if enforced. But they are not enforced. It becomes too much trouble for most to prevent a POV warrior insisting on some original research being included in an article. If old rules are not enforceable then new ones won't help. The POV warriors who don't care about the old rules that aren't enfored won't care about new rules that aren't enforced. And secondary versus tertiary is not the issue in any case.
As to the new long section on citing sources, does it really belong here?
Ideally, there should be proper citation for all topics that are either:
* Academic
* Controversial
"Ideally" is a give away. When I see the word in a ontext like this I know it means that the ideal can be ignored. Bad. And why only for two kinds of articles if we are being "ideal"? This disagrees with the plea later that all material should be sourced.
Wikipedia is not the place for original ideas, therefore the material you contribute must have been learned from an external source or more probably various external sources.
"Therefore" is not used logically.
As a contributor, you should therefore list as many of those sources as you can.
Overkill. I should list major general sources and sources which provide unique information.
Depending on the details, lack of attribution can constitute plagiarism.
Cite or reference the details, otherwise this sounds like legal scare tactics. It is no secret that Wikipedia articles are gravely lacking in source references but the information in them must have come from somewhere. So far no-one is suing and accusations about semi-plagiarism are seldom heard, though edit histories make it clear enough who is adding material without sources. No-one wants to open the can of worms about where the information has come from in so many articles. Over a million articles .... over a million articles .... over a million articles ....
Ideally, you should actively search for authoritative references.
"Ideally" again. My mind immediately inserts the phrase "but in reality ..." following the sentence.
Jallan 05:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Various problems

message: I started a related but broader discussion at Wikipedia needs special standards. Maurreen 08:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Related discussion