Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 11

message: If for example the software program A has a green button in its about box (let's assume, that it is a very important one :-), and it is not written about anywhere in the universe, but everyone can install A and check for herself, would writing about it still be illegal "original research"?   |  [[User observer] 30 August 2006
:If readers can obtain copies and check for themselves, the software is a published source; unless the person writing the article also wrote the program, it isn't original research. Ordinarily the program would be a published source and could be used on Wikipedia, unless there are some unusual restrictions about who can obtain copies. --Gerry Ashton 02:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The primary v. secondary sources discussion has been moved to /Primary v. secondary sources discussion to free up the main talk page for other discussions.  All addition discussion on this topic will take place there. Any related posts made will be moved there. FeloniousMonk 07:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you moved all the discussion unrelated to primary v. secondary as well. - O^O 07:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, that's kinda the point... Since the absolutely fruitless discussion on primary v. secondary had become disruptive to the point of excluding all other discussions lately, there had essentially been no discussion unrelated to primary v. secondary for some time, really. It will all end up in the same archive when the unrelated primary v. secondary sub page discussion is settled. FeloniousMonk 07:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there had been some discussion on the self-citing issue, but I suppose the interested parties there can decide where they want to continue their discussion. - O^O 07:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you O^O for making it clear what the discussion was about. Wjhonson 07:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All primary v. secondary sources discussion moved

message: JA: Recent discussions in the arenas of the WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:VER pages have brought to the fore once again a recurring question about the integrity — the inseparable wholeness and mutual dependence — of Wikipedia's Triune Policy, traditionally marked on all three principal policy pages as follows:
Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three.
JA: I would like to discuss some of the consequences that this triple policy has on the arena of WP:NOR, specifically, why it is that WP must consider "Originality", in a very specific sense of the word, to be a "bad thing".
JA: There is one little thing that has to be mentioned before I can say much of anything sensible about that, however:
JA: A while back we had been doing what my old teachers called the "compare & contrast" exercise, examining in this case the related ideas of principle and policy.
# On the comparison side, both concepts are used to express a higher level of general application than the mere counting of cases.
# On the contrast side, a policy is a principle in action, a rule on which you plan to act.  This makes a big difference between them.
JA: But it's Sunday, so I'll need to give this a rest until later in the day.  Jon Awbrey 15:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the Integrity of [[WP:Policy]]

message: JA: I suggest that we return the main page to a its truly long-standing formulation of August 1st 2006, and start over from there.  I suggest that the people who have been wasting all of our times for the last couple of weeks with their highly contentious and non-consensual alterations of long-standing WP:NOR policy cease and desist from continuing their hijacking and lockdown of the page.  Jon Awbrey 16:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a "collegal and productive discussion".   I have spent most of my adult life having those and I know the difference. It is why they pay me the big bucks.  This is simply an effort to railroad thru against opposition a change in a long-established Wiki rule that worked just fine until I evolked it against an abuser of the system.  This editor (who has been chastized before for abuses) then inititiated this rule change.  If you are going make such aa change,  you must produce some reason other than maintaining ideological purity. Pproctor 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia.  It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. We further hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles.  While specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia, they are often familiar with and have access to a wider range of verifiable sources and can thus be of special assistance in verifying or citing sources. See also Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines.
It is based on a version I proposed, and has been changed to reflect comments by Stephen B Streater, Steven G. Johnson, and WAS 4.250 (this is what we at Wikipedia call a collaborative process) and it has the support of Jossi, Jitse Niesen, Slim Virgin, and Jayjg.  Now, this is what I call staying on track.  Let´s make this as good as we can and put it in. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Jon, I read your comment above, and other comments of yours and fail to understand the purpose of it all. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You speak of "redundancy", while you miss that your long comments about this policy are becoming just that. I am no interested in such a conversation. WP:OR is serving us well as is. Small adjustments here and there are welcome. but a major re-write is out of the question for the simple reason that it is unlikely that it will happen. So, maybe it wold be better to go back and put our attention editing articles rather than discussing policy ad nauseum, shall we?. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for Getting Back on Track

message: Just curious (and maybe this can be added to the policy page as additional rationale), but can the appearance of OR on Wikipedia also be considered legally dangerous? What I mean is Dr. X posts an unpublished theory on Wiki, Dr. Y who claims to have discovered the theory first get angry because Dr. X made the theory public before Dr. Y was able to publish his $100,000-contracted treatis, so Dr. Y sues Wikipedia. Or Dr. X posts a brand new formula for shoe polish on Wiki, someone decides to make said shoe polish, and ends up blowing himself up. Survivors sue Wiki. That sort of thing. That's actually the first rationale I thought of when I first heard of the NOR rule. Just a thought. 23skidoo 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think such things are covered by Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Deco 02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal implications

message: JA: Few people in the real world dream that consensus can be "neared" simply by dissing all dissenting voices.  There's even guidelines a'plenty in WP that say the same thing, but they are constantly being dismissed by a number of folks who seem to think that sui generis means concensual suicide.  Luckily, WP is not really such an i-land unto itself.  Ding-Dong!  It's for you.  Jon Awbrey 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to get facts straight even if only for very short periods of time. (1) I didn´t use the word consensus and ¡guess what! I did not on purpose, (2) I don´t diss all dissenting voices, in fact there have been several changes to what I originall proposed. I do of course diss your voice, but that is only because it makes no sense. Wikipedia is indeed for me and other expert editors like Steve Johnson none of whom have problems with this language. It is also for non-expert editors who appreciate being educated in professional standards. It is also for ding-dongs who insist on using this as a forum for blowing as much hot air out their rear-ends as possible. We need policies that accommodate all. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I assumed (I see wrongly) that you were referring to the last thing I wrote, where I abandoned the word consensus. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So let me get this right, Jon. You suggest a separate set of rules, or rather no rules at all, for editors working under their own names. How exactly do you propose to tell when someone is editing under their own name? There is no way for you to verify this. Wikipedia is not a peer-review system and never will be. You are looking for something else entirely. The complete MediaWiki software is freely available to you: why don't you set up your own system that works the way you want it to, with full peer review? There is definitely a need for a peer-reviewed Wiki-based system: here's your chance to start it. Gwernol 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On WikiPseudoConsensus