Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 7

message: I have been asked to mention this discussion here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about NPOV, NOR, Verifiability etc. on [[Talk:Fedora Core]] 

message: I was discussing with Shawnc a photo he had altered (:Image:395px-Keratoconus1-800-edit.png) when he called my attention to an altered photo and a "synthetic animation" that have been promoted to Featured quality:
*:Image:Water drop animation enhanced small.gif
*:Image:Boxing080905 photoshop.jpg
As stated here at WP:NOR, altered photos are not to be used to illustrate the main Wikipedia namespace, as they are essentially original research.  These two examples are both extremely beautiful, but they should not have been promoted to Featured quality for this reason.  They should also not be used to illustrate Wikipedia articles.
The reason for the rule is that an altered photo purports to illustrate something that is not true.  It captures a moment in time that never occurred.  It is false.  When the photo retoucher performs his work, he is creating a fact, by himself.  This is a clear violation of what the NOR rule is supposed to prevent.  
The debate over altered photos is of course not original to Wikipedia; altered photos have been an interesting topic in journalism ethics classes for several decades; see the article "Faking images in photojournalism" from 1988. I will expand the rule here on NOR to try to explain 'why' but it sounds like word of the rule needs to be spread to the people who frequent the featured photos discussion.  Tempshill 06:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have a grave misunderstanding of WP:NOR and its implications. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Less cryptic, please.  Tempshill 18:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The image in question is :Image:Water drop animation enhanced small.gif, and is used on Tap (valve) and Drop (liquid) where it illustrates both articles quite adequately.  Each frame in the animation is assembled from a sequence of many cycles of water dropping from a tap, so that consecutive frames do not show the same droplet.  It's a reasonable technique and illustrates droplet formation under free fall quite well. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The image is not presenting an original theory of how water droplets fall or form, only aiming to illustrate the conventional understanding of the subject in a visual way. If it were OR to illustrate conventional understanding, it would be OR to write about it in a new or creative way as well, which is pretty much all we do. Deco 05:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  If one's position is that :Image:Water drop animation enhanced small.gif is an illustration, then it is of course acceptable.  If one's position is that it is a movie of an actual water droplet falling, then it is not acceptable, because it isn't.  A compromise that preserves the integrity of the articles might be to label each instance as an 'illustration' or the like.  Tempshill 18:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All pictures on Wikipedia are used as illustrations; if they were used as evidence of something, they would be original research, regardless of whether they were claimed to be genuine or not.  Presenting images as factual evidence might be appropriate on Wikisource, but not here.  Of course, not only are all the images discussed here used as illustrations, but the fact that they were digitally altered is clearly documented on their image description page.  Thus, there should be no problem here.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree; the above paragraph includes a good deal of wishful thinking about the way that a reader considers a photograph.  A photo is evidence of something.  People have been conditioned to believe this from decades of reading the newspaper, reading magazines, and watching TV.  A photo illustrating a Wikipedia article will be taken to be evidence.  An altered photo, then, misleads the reader.  This is no different from an altered photo in a newspaper misleading the reader. Tempshill 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with the above. This is a ridiculous suggestion. "A known disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo" I think is the excerpt you are basing this on? Well I think a key word is "distort". Image editing can certainly be used to manipulate a photo to enhance the illustrative power of the image. This is not distorting it in any way. --Fir0002 11:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Untrue. When National Geographic moved the pyramids closer together to "enhance the illustrated power of the image" on their cover, this was a distortion of reality and is not allowed.  Tempshill 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We have several paintings, drawings, and diagrams on Wikipedia which capture a great deal less reality than a real photograph with the top of somebody's head Photoshopped on. But they illustrate what's going on and add colour to the page. If people say "it's in a picture, so it must be true" then that's sad, but Wikipedia is not responsible for other people's incredibly lazy scholarship. And it's certainly not original research to present an illustration of something in an article, no more than it's original research to write the same article in your own words. Lord Bob 12:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not certain what you're trying to say here.  Illustrations are fine.  Altered photos are not.  Tempshill 04:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just ensure that the caption and image description properly describe its nature as a constructed illustration and not as a movie taken using high speed film. Deco 06:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I was stating that 1) altered photos depict as much or more as an original illustration, 2) they are basically the same thing in OR terms, 3) I think it's all good in OR terms. At least, I think it was. It was a few days ago. Lord Bob 01:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altered photos 

message: Will evidence of innacuracy or problems be shown in place of edited material?
Call someone a liar or disprove a fact then another fact has to replace it.
--G-Spot 17:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking a question?  Jkelly 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if secondary sources conflict, what you have is a scholarly controversy and not "disproof". So both sides should be documented and both sides should cite sources. Fearwig 01:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence.... 

message: I've removed the following section as some of it seems unclear and may even encourage OR:
:The following are not original research:
:* Listing well-known claims which have few (or possibly just one or two) adherents (e.g. Shakespearean authorship theories or Linus Pauling's advocacy of Vitamin C)
:* Listing notable claims that contradict established axioms, theories, or norms (e.g morphogenetic fields or conspiracy theories)
:* Including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results (e.g. theological or philosophical theories)
:* Citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor, the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible (e.g. Phlogiston, Aether)
:* Listing ideas that have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal
:* Listing ideas that have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).
The point of the policy is that all of the above are fine iff they have been published by a reliable source, so it might be confusing to list them as though they're special cases. Also, it's not clear what "citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor ..." refers to. Of course it's fine to publish views that violate Occam's Razor, iff they've been published by a reliable source. (What's special about Occam's Razor?) SlimVirgin (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be oriented towards certain misapplications of the rule. Sometimes people will mistakenly think that because a topic is unscientific, in the sense of lacking a testable hypothesis or contradicting established facts, that it is unsuitable for inclusion. I'm not sure how much this has do with OR though. Deco 20:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the section should be put back. It is a clear counterpoint to the What is excluded? section. It doesn't encourage OR as much as it encourages people to understand NOR - what is and isn't OR. People might cite NOR and claim that one of the above violates it, when a simple list like that would cure such an issue. Fresheneesz 20:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see why the particular things on this list should be singled out. For example, who has ever claimed that we can't include material that violates Occam's Razor? I'm also concerned about "Listing ideas that have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal," because we don't publish ideas that have been accepted for publication. We publish them once they've been published. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those points could be modified or removed. But I think that *a* list is neccessary, though *this* list could be improved a bit. Fresheneesz 22:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear section 

message: One thing that occurred to me recently was to look at US censuses (which I have access to via a subscription service) to establish the addresses and birthplaces of people who are the subject of biographies.  Look at Talk:John W. Campbell#Census information for some notes I made on this data, for example.  Is this original research?  I think it's not, since the source is available and the inferences are not analysis or synthesis, but I'd like to hear opinions from more experienced Wikipedians.  I am well aware that identifying particular people in a census is a process that has many pitfalls, but it is also true that it is often very clear that the right person has been identified (as in the John W. Campbell case).  Any thoughts on this data?  And incidentally, if I'm going to cite the census, is there a cite template for it?  I can build a cite format from the forms used by genealogists, if not.  Mike Christie 16:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is relevant to what we are talking about. NOR is certainly not meant to mean you can't go and find new sources relevant to the subject and use them: that would prohibit anything being written at all. Again according to the viewpoint expressed above you could make reasonable inferences from the data. So I would say go for it. DJ Clayworth 16:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of census data

message: JA: I want to discuss a certain type of (DIYD)2 phenomenon that I frequently encounter out there in the process of writing articles.  As a responsible scholar by nature and nurture, I always give complete literature citations, very often give verbatim quotations, and doing that in the case of a complex argument in the source often necessitates the use of blockquotes.  This is very common in books and journals that demand exacting analysis of primary source materials.  This meets with more diehard resistance in WP than I ever would have dreamed or nightmared possible.  Now, you obviously can't write a decent article in the form of a string of blockquotes, and I have never tried doing that, so you have to put in transitions of various types, very often stating in more casual or contemporary terms what a primary source, that may be from another clime or another time, is about to say, or has just said.  And there you get the other half of the condemnation that you are inserting Orginal Research for interpreting what the primary sources said.  You must understand that this mostly occurs in the case of very contentious articles where just about any addition of information, now matter how well sourced, will be disputed, so there is no rational evaluation of whether the necessary interpolations are in fact no-brainer interpretations or not.  But this seems to happen more and more of late, and people who no more read the whole of the WP:NOR page than they read the whole of anything else are very fond of citing it in defense of their desire to remain innocent of any "new" idea, even if, or especially if, it's a "new" idea from Plato or Lao Tzu.  So I think that something in the very first boxed paragraph of this article needs to clarify that issue in a manner both clear and firm.  Jon Awbrey 14:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I think this is an issue that the above addition to the policy should help with. We should include something to the effect that "summarizing, clarifying, paraphrasing and explaining" are all permitted provided that they are done in a neutral way and accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. DJ Clayworth 17:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (DIYD)<sup>2</sup>.  Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't

message: I'll try to be brief.
As is well-known, mathematics is a deductive science.  This means, before anything else, that the conclusions of mathematics are numerous, and the ways in which they can be presented are ten-fold as numerous.  If you start with a different set of assumptions, or the same set of assumptions in a different form, you can build modern mathematics in an entirely different language.
Because this encyclopedia is to be a reference, there is every sense in maintaining the modern academic standards, and in refraining from introducing nonstandard expression.  But that is only half the journey.  Even if we accept the same fundamental assumptions, and agree to express ourselves more or less cohesively (that is, with internal consistency, motivated by convention, which in any case is nine out of ten times simple common sense), we are still confronted by derivatives.  That is to say, short of copying proofs verbatim from authors of books -- proofs which will vary widely, because while the conventions of mathematics are widely standardized among mathematicians, the procedures and means of reasoning is not.  So if John writes down an author's proof and Michael writes down another's, who is to decide between them?  And who is to stop Harry from barging in with his own proof, which adheres to all the conventions of the language, as set forth in the preceding text -- and which is correct, maybe more correct than either John's or Michael's. but for which Harry won't come up with a source.  What to do then?
The policy on Wikipedia so far has been de facto different for mathematics articles.  That is to say, like all mathematicians, the mathematicians who write here judge substantive additions to articles on their correctness first, and then by everything else.  But this leaves one important question open: where do we draw the line?  What kind of deduction in mathematics articles can be seen transparent, so that it doesn't need verification?  --VKokielov 05:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This question has arisen before and no one has been able to answer it. We can't legislate so exactly that we could describe in advance where to draw the line. We can only hope that other mathematicians will know it when they see it, and won't disagree. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL!! SlimVirgin (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematics

message: The example link under why no original content is broken, I would fix it but I don't know where it is supposed to point to.
--24cell 21:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point out which one, or say which section it's in? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example link broken 

message: I would appreciate everyone here to look at and oppose Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Rules for lists of X-Americans. User:Arniep seems to be saying that "Common sense" can override this policy when it comes to listing "X-Americans". It is very clear from the policy that all the "X-American" labels can only be applied by Wikipedia to a person if applied elsewhere already, even if the definition for X-American matches that person, just as is the case with the plagarism example on this page - we can not say what is or is not plagarism pending a source that labels that subject as exactly that. The "Common sense" that Arniep is proposing, besides being incredibly editor-subjective, seems to be a stark violation of the policy. Cheers... Mad Jack 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remeber, IAR is an essay, not policy, and you invoke it at your own risk. I've seen admins severely attacked and hounded out of positions of trust for invoking IAR. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a centralised discussion about this hyphenated-American business at one point, but I do not know where.  Jkelly 20:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still ongoing in numerous places. However, common sense also states that, if a person is notable enough and notably enough an X-American for our purposes, they will sooner or later be called an X-American or an X in a reliable source. Ignore all rules is really for the worst-case senario, which this isn't. Mad Jack 21:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Common sense" on Wikipedia