Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite 5th December 2004 to 5th February 2005)/Archive 4

message: I think this is a little confused because discussion of the draft rewrite is going on in two different places. I am going to move a bunch of comments from the main talk page to here. Then I'm going to archive a bunch. Maurreen 04:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Consolidation

message: Because I believe the approach is wrong. It would be like a believer in evolution supporting the tweaking of a set of guidelines to moral behavior in the direction of creationism on that grounds that this would give the guidelines more pedagogic value and make them more enforceable. I think the increased reference to legitimate publishers is dangerous. I don't agree with the unsourced viewpoint that an encyclopedia should only be a tertiary source. I don't agree that there should be a distinction made between academic and non-academic subjects in respect to providing validation of statements made. The most that might reasonably be said, I think, is that information about a subject should be backed by academic sources in proportion to it being a subject of academic research, but without drawing a distinct line between academic subjects and non-academic subjects. Obscure and controversial information should be backed up for all subjects (and it doesn't hurt to provide references to more easily available and straightforward information also).
Jallan 05:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not join in writing this new draft?

message: Is the following an issue we should discuss on the No original research page, or does it belong elsewhere? An editor is trying to insert on the Kenneth Bigley page links to the video of his murder. I feel this is a snuff movie i.e. pornography and should not be linked to. In addition, the website carrying it carries other very extreme forms of pornography including bestiality. However, although the video is primary source material and cannot be used in the article (only published articles about it can be used as Wikipedia sources), can the video itself be linked to?  Normally I'd say yes, of course, but what kind of policy could be formulated to exclude this kind of thing? Do others agree it should be excluded?  Sorry if this is a tangent. Slim 05:50, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
:I'm ambivalent. But I do think we should work toward at least guidelines for these types of things. I created Wikipedia:Ethics and law. So far, it is just links, mainly internal. Maurreen 06:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking to primary source material

message: Maurreen, regarding your latest edit i.e. that facts/ideas in Wikipedia should "normally" have been published elsewhere already. I worry that this opens a loophole for unscrupulous editors to squeeze through.  Are you thinking of, say, a trial transcript that only a couple of people might have? I would argue that should not be used as a Wikipedia source, because the only way I could check it is if I were to purchase my own copy of the transcripts, at a cost of many thousands of dollars perhaps. I can't offhand think of a situation where Wikipedia could publish something not already published somewhere else, either on the Web or on paper, because the whole point of the verification principle is that readers should be able to check that what's in Wikipedia is correctly reported, and they can only do that if we rely on published material. I'm not saying there isn't an exception, just that I can't offhand think of one.  Slim 06:32, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
:I understand your concern and have changed it back, at least for now. I'm unsure about it myself, but I do think it deserves discussion, and that such a discussion would be more appropriate at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Maurreen 06:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Will do here, perhaps such notice belongs elsewhere also. Maurreen 06:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Normally" published elsewhere

message: On second thought, let me give you a couple quick examples, and then we can decide whether a larger discussion is warranted. I don't know whether these statements are published elsewhere, but I doubt they would be disputed by anyone knowledgeable about the subjects. (I wrote a couple of these, and I might be biased.)
#List of common newspaper names 
#At United States Marine Corps#Appearance: "Marines are often confused with soldiers, who are in the United States Army." 
#At Copy editing#Tests and tryouts: "Most U.S. newspapers and many other publishers give candidates for copy-editing jobs a test or a try-out. These vary widely. They may be timed or not; they may last an hour to a week; and some are take-home tests. They may include questions, and usually include copy to edit. The length of the copy may be anywhere from single sentences to many articles." Maurreen 06:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Will do here, perhaps such notice belongs elsewhere also. Maurreen 06:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: Wikipedia:Guide_to_Layout#References essentially uses "references," "sources," "further reading" and "bibliography" interchangeably. Should we continue this discussion over there? Maurreen 08:11, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion?