Wikipedia talk:No original research

Archives

The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.

Test Case

As a bit of a test, I have listed 9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny for deletion. It is a self-published video promoting the author's crank theory about whacky 9/11 conspiracies. The Wikipedia article editors of the page have provided a long, detailed synopsis of the video, which (IMO) (may now be relegated to edit history) serves primarily to promote the video and its theories. It is not otherwise sourced. So, is a synopsis of a self-published (Internet-published, in this case) crank video encyclopedic? If it is, may I load up all my home videos on the Internet and write pages about them :-) -- Gnetwerker 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not read the articles, but please note that Alex Jones (journalist), the author, has an article in WP. If he is notable enough to have an article, articles on his works can be created. BTW, this video generates 140,000 pages in Google. The problem is not with having an article, but what the article contains. An AfD will fail IMO. I will vote for keep, cleanup and sourcing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

After reading the articles, and digging a bit deeper, I would argue that the video may not be notable enough to warrant a full article. Maybe a delete and merge onto te author's article would be more appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I know the AfD has closed, but I took a look, and it seems to me that the example illustrates an NPOV problem with articles on theories that have not been discussed in the literature. One way to identify a crank is that no one has bothered to argue with him. Since there appears to be no independent sources about the theory, the only possible critique of the film would be OR. Doesn't one of our policy pages say, in effect, that if one cannot be both NPOV and NOR, then the article doesn't belong? Of course, if we can't form a consensus to delete it, then it matters little what the policy says. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

controversy over authority

This part of WP:NOR came up in an AFD: "In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy"

It's being claimed that it means that if wikipedians can't agree on the notability or reliability of a single source, that source should be included in the article anyway, and the article should note that wikipedians don't agree on its inclusion. I believe that is misreading the above, since such an interpretation would violate Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference. I think the above means that when there is a difference of opinion about a source that the information in that source should be compared to what other sources say and that the differences between those sources should be addressed in the article. Part of the policy was left out when it was quoted in the afd, which reads in full: "In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view." Шизомби 02:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right, but would like to hear from others who have a lot of experience here. Ultimately, what we editors think of a particular source is not as important as what other published accounts say about a source (e.g. if one source actually and explicitly calls into question the validity of another source). I would only add that often disputes among well-informed editors in fact are an index of disputes among authors of verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Schizombie's interpretation. The sentence means that, where no one source stands out as authoritative, an account of the controversy regarding the subject should be given — not the controversy regarding the source, unless the latter is part of the subject. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Because that section uses passive wordage in stating, "there may be controversy..." the original policy-writer's intent is unclear-- and thus, my reading of the section is slightly contrary to what the editors have suggested above. Obviously, an article couldn't very well include a discussion of disagreements between WP editors; that would be Original Research itself. My initial impulse is that rather than referring to a controversy between Wikipedians about the legitimacy of a source, the section may instead be about a controversy among sources themselves as to whether a particular one is reputable. This goes towards what Slrubenstein suggests above about "disputes among well-informed editors". Providing an account "of the different authorities or sources" may mean, in effect, stating that some "authorities" disagree on the merits of others as sources. For example, the Holocaust revisionism article, has a discussion of the trial and controversy between David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt, and shortly afterwards there is this statement (which I suspect the folks above would agree with): "Finkelstein's work is rejected by much of the mainstream Jewish community as well as many scholars."

  However, an additional interpretation is the section does mean that in those rare cases of a strident disagreement between Wikipedians over the legitimacy/reliability of a source, the portion of an article that is based on such a source might include a disclaimer ("an account of the controversy"), such as, "The legitimacy of the source for the following section is disputed". This would be no more a violation of "Avoid self-reference" than putting an "Original Research" or "NPOV" tag on sections of articles in dispute. (Note that "Avoid self-reference" itself is a style guide and not a policy, and likely needs to be cleaned up, too.)

  Both of these views, IMHO, are appropriate, and not mutually exclusive; but in any event, the particular section being cited should be clarified with more direct language.—Leflyman^Talk 07:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification to Top-of-Page Warning

I've edited the warning at the top of the page to make clear that "changes" do not include grammatical corrections, links, clarifications, or examples. As I hope I've made clear, I do not agree with this policy, but I am deferring to those more experienced than I. In any event, my view is that bad policy clearly stated is better than ambiguous bad policy. When the main page is unblocked, the statement there should be changed too.Ragout 05:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• I removed your modification of the notice because 1) it was unnecessary ; 2) it was grammatically horrid; 3) included an inaccurate claim that adding "clarifications or examples" to the policy does not require consensus -- on the contrary, it still does. In the case of the present disagreement, the consensus of those who actually understand the policy agree that SlimVirgin's changes were in accordance with it.—Leflyman^Talk 22:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's necessary: witness all the controversy regarding "changes" vs. "clarifications." Your other points (and Askolnick's similar point) are well taken. Thanks. I tried to change as few words as possible, but the result seems to have been poor grammar and clarity. I'll try again. Ragout 03:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ragout, in your next proposal, the most important is to qualify "consensus" with "of those who actually understand the policy". In fact, in practice, consensus is almost always used with this implicit qualifier, not only for edits on the policy, but also for edits on ordinary articles. What is interesting is that most of the debates around the policy pages are between those "who actually do not understand the policy" and those "who actually understand the policy". Many amongst those "who actually do not understand the policy" try to clarify it. They are often supporters of views that are held by minorities in the Wikipedia community, but still perfectly verifiable and significant views. They often have less edits because they get discouraged with the policy before they can get more. The latter oppose. They even suppress the opinions of those "who actually do not understand the policy" using the argument that they do not understand the policy and do not have enough edits. Perhaps they are afraid that those "who actually do not understand the policy" are just trying to have a policy that they can understand and use with authority to present their view (and get more edits). -Lumière 04:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, don't you think this defense of your conduct would be better placed where it belongs, on the Requests for Comment-Lumiere page? [1] Once again, you appear to be hijacking a discussion to promote your personal agenda. In so doing, you are only providing your accusers more evidence of your disruptive conduct. Askolnick 13:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In the course of editing the top-of-page notice, I eventually realized that it is not the same as the main policy page notice. So I'm going to edit the talk page notice to make it consistent. I think there needs to be a very strong argument for having two different notices. Ragout 03:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Right after I wrote this, I noticed that SlimVirgin had edited the top-of-page notice that appears on WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. The intention seems to be to discourage edits to the policy pages. Since this was done without discussion, I reverted it too. Ragout 04:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, on April 22, SlimVirgin changed the 2nd sentence of the top-of-page notice from this :

Feel free to edit the page as needed, but please make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus before you make them.

to this:

Please make sure that any changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus before you make them.

And this was done while both WP:NOR and WP:V were protected! Ragout 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Does size always equal quality of reputation or relevance of research?

This is my first day here so I can't be too terribly demanding, but I really must at least ask the question after reading this policy regarding what qualifies as "reputable."

Charles, what a breath of fresh air you are. We've had new editors turn up trying to change the policy no less. Demand away. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"...Does it have a large or very small readership?...does it have a large, permanent staff?...If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls 'reputable'."

While I certainly agree that fact-checking and responsible publication practices are essential to take any paper seriously, this doesn't mean there must be a "large, permanent staff" to do so. Ever heard of I.F. Stone? There are many publications that told the truth during the buildup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq as well, should they be ignored because the New York Times was beating the war drums at the time?

Reliable newspapers and publishing houses do tend to have a permanent staff, while not invariably huge, usually not tiny either. Can you think of an example of one you'd regard as reliable that doesn't? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought Charles' example of I. F. Stone, publisher of I. F. Stone's Weekly, was an excellent example, perhaps the classic example. Doug Henwood's LBO and the Cook Political Report are reliable self-published newsletters. Josua Marshall's Talking Points Memo also springs to mind. Ragout 13:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Such examples are particularly poinant regarding smaller-scale matters in local communities. With the national, state and regional press naturally ignoring what can often be bitter and brutal political and economic battles in rural areas, who are we supposed to turn to for research? Sometimes the one or two established daily newspapers in the area both get it wrong, are we to assume they are always right just because they have the cash flow and discount newer or smaller publications don't?

I hope the established folks here don't take this the wrong way, but as someone who is starting up a community paper, it'd be nice to see the open source and free-thinking community on the Internet be a little more open to research that isn't churned out by media conglomerates which more and more tend to shy away from the kind of real investigative journalism that makes history. Especially in small communities such as Humboldt County, the alternatives are few, but we are just as deserving to have our history recounted.

--Charles Douglas

Size is not the main consideration. Wikipedia insists on verifiability from reputable sources because it is a tertiary source, and is entirely dependent on the quality of the information in the primary and secondary sources it draws from. If information in Wikipedia is wrong, we need to be able to say, it came from this source. We therefore limit the sources that we may use in hopes that quality sources will get things right most of the time. We look to peer-viewed journals for scholarly subjects, to books from publishers that have an established record and professional editors, and to periodicals that fact-check material before publishing it. On the converse, we do not use self-published books, supermarket-tabloids, blogs and web-forums and other sources that have not established a reputation for fact-checking, except under carefully limited circumstances. I can't say whether a new community will be accepted as a reputalbe source by other editors, but I would look for attribution (the name of the author) and indentification of sources for any article that would be cited in Wikipedia. I will also comment that I have seen 'histories' in comunity papers that got things very badly wrong because the author didn't bother to check his or her facts. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Charles, I've inserted a couple of comments into your post, and also want to add that the point of the policy is that for a publication to be what we call "reliable," we expect it to have some kind of fact-checking process or editorial oversight. A very small publication that is, in effect, self-published can't be regarded as a reliable source, no matter how good it might be in reality, because we simply have no way of judging how good it is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Charles gave a convincing example of a reputable self-published newsletter, and I've added a few more. The paragraph in question says "there is no clear definition," of a reputable source (outside of academia). So it doesn't rule out self-published sources, just suggests that self-publication is an important factor, and a very big strike against the source. Ragout 13:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The rules about self-published sources are described on WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. But getting back to Charles' question about I. F. Stone, it seems like Stone's newsletter would pretty clearly be one of the rare exceptions mentioned on WP:V (were Stone still alive & publishing). Ragout 05:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what I meant by saying it was dealt with in another policy. Where the self-publisher is an acknowledged expert in the field, or a well-known journalist, the material may be used, though still with caution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation correction needed

"where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and"

should read

"where an article (1) makes descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and"

-- SGBailey 13:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No necessity to cite

The policy should explicitly state that just because someone put something in an article without a citation, it doesn't automatically mean it's "original research." You would be amazed at the number of people on Wikipedia that don't understand this. I had an arbitration case against me that accused me of original research, and the ruling was against me and I was put on probation. But, the arbitrators never even bothered to request sources for ANY of my edits. I was ready to supply sources for any edit that was questioned, but, they never bothered. They either just didn't care to take the time to check if my edits were indeed original research or they just didn't understand the policy. I'm always careful to enter in information that I can present a source for if someone requests it. This shouldn't happen to anyone else. Please mention in this article that not attaching a source to an edit does not automatically "original research." Do not claim or convict someone of "original research" without requesting sources for their edits. Thanks. RJII 02:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am curious, why didn't you volunteer the sources? It would seem the obvious reply to make. While WP:CITE is a guideline, not a policy, I can't see much reason not to cite a source, unless the point was really trivial and you were 99% sure it could also be found in one of the already-cited sources. Ideally, shouldn't the sources be in the article's bibliography, so that an interested reader can do further reading? Robert A.West (Talk) 03:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is policy, Robert. WP:CITE is just a style guide: a how-to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't volunteer any sources, because there was never any specific edits that were accused of being original research. I've contributed a huge amount of edits to Wikipedia, so, what was I supposed to cite? It was just a vague charge of a pattern of "original research" by a couple people trying to get rid of me. During the case I pleaded for any arbitrator to request a source for ANYTHING that I entered in Wikipedia, but they couldn't be bothered --they just didn't care or didn't understand the policy. I'm guessing they were thinking "let's just put him on probation so we don't have to deal with it --no harm done." And, I do very often attach a source to my edits, but not for everything. RJII 03:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, it needs to be made explicit that there is no policy requirement that an editor attach a source to any of his edits. All that is required is that the information is sourceABLE upon request. RJII 03:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would consider policy statements that unsourced material may be deleted or moved to the talk pages, for example, to be a policy requirement. There may be more explicit statements I don't recall right now. But remember that this is an encyclopedia, with encyclopedic standards, and like any other encyclopedia, sources and references need to be given, not to prove the information is correct, but so that readers can use them to expand their own research. This is what an encyclopedia is for. Coyoty 02:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It should at least be a guideline, if it isn't already. Imagine that you write some nice proza based on a book that you have but you fail to provide it in the references. A couple of years later when you are busy doing gold mining in Timbiktou, another editor who used another book with a differing opinion asks for the reference on the Talk page. No answer. Obvious outcome: deletion or text replacement. Harald88 10:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what Coyoty was thinking of is in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, which says, The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. I think that is fairly explicit. If you want a edit to remain, provide a reference when you add the material. It may be harder to dig up the reference later when the material is challenged. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 10:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's a good to provide sources. But, I still have a legitimate point. It's not a requirement that a source is cited, unless one has been requested. This needs to be made clear, because people are being persecuted for "original research" when their edits may, in fact, not be original research. The only way to determine if something is truly original research is to request a source. The mere lack of an attached source in an article does not prove that it is original research. (A policy that required every statement in an article to have an attached source would be absurd). RJII 17:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

I think everyone has cooled down, so I am unprotecting. I urge anyone who wants to make a substantive edit to discuss it here first. If there is a violation of 3RR by more than one person in the next couple of days, I think it should be protected again. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No necessity to cite (second)

Why was the mention that there is no policy requirement to cite a source deleted? This is a true statement. It needs to be clarified that it's wrong to assume something is original research without requesting a source. An unsourced statement may well not be original research. Most sentences in Wikipedia ARE unsourced, but are not necessarily original research. RJII 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You should go to WP:V if you want to discuss the need to cite sources, RJ. If an editor requests a source, and you don't provide one, they are entitled to remove your text, whether they believe it's OR or merely unsourced. If you're annoyed about an arbcom ruling, you have to take it up with them, not try to change a policy to reflect your opinion about the ruling. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware that if a source is not cited upon request that the material should be deleted. I fully support doing that. I do it myself. If I find something dubious, I request a source. If none can be provided in reasonable time by anyone, I delete the information. I expect and hope others would hold my edits to the same standards. I'm not attempting to "change a policy." I'm attempting to point out that there is no policy requring that an editor cite a source. Just because there is no source attached to a statement in an article, it does not mean it is original research. The way to determine if it is original research is to REQUEST A SOURCE. This needs to be made clear. To just assume something is orignal research because there's no footnote attached to a statement, is improper. Do we really want people going around deleting all unsourced statements on Wikipedia without attempting to determine if it is original reasarch or not? What is important is that the information is sourceABLE. RJII 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The policy does say that "citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources ..." I think your point is best brought up on WP:V, which is where sourcing is discussed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course "the only way to demonstrate your are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources." However, there is no policy requiring one to demonstrate that he hasn't conducted original research. There is no policy requiring the citation of sources. It should be stated that "the way to attempt to verify if something is original research is to request a source." RJII 18:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This policy describes what OR is. People can therefore spot it, or know they're doing it themselves, with or without a source. Please take discussion of sourcing to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly this article should suggest HOW to determine if something is original research. It doesn't. It's negligent in that respect. The way to determine if something is original research is to request sources (or look for them yourself). This needs to be made clear. You can't just assume something is original research because a sentence doesn't have a footnote attached. RJII 18:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR is clear enough about what is required vis a vis sources, and what is or isn't OR; it doesn't require a lengthy discourse about methods for finding original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not requesting a "lengthy discourse." I'm requesting that it be stated that just because no source is attached to a statement it is not a foregone conclusion that the statement is original research, and "the way to attempt to verify if something is original research is to request, or look, for a source." RJII 19:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of things in life you aren't required to do, but if you don't do them, the results are mediocre and no one wants to use your work. Businesses don't succeed by doing only what's required of them, and artists don't get well known by putting in minimum effort. If you think including sources is a chore instead of part of making a good article, and you think making good articles is too much work, then maybe you should do something else more satisfyingly adequate. Coyoty 21:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not my point at all. Do you realize how ridiculous the encyclopedia would be if we attached a source to EVERY SENTENCE? I attach sources to everything that I think is not common knowledge or may be controversial, but I don't attach a source for every single sentence I add to Wikipedia. That would be insane. It needs to be made clear that just because a source isn't attached to a statement that it is not a foregone conclusion that it is original research, and that to determine if it is, sources should be requested. It's very simple. RJII 04:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And do you realize how useless the encyclopedia would be without sources cited? Citing a single sentence will always be the exception. Depending on many factors, citations can be for the entire article, a section, a paragraph or a sentence. And do multiple citations make articles in scientific journals or well-written histories look ridiculous? I will say that refusal to provide a source raises a strong suspicion of OR. The policy is that if anybody requests a citation for anything in an article, it should be supplied. Period. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 13:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why am I not getting through here? Of course a source should be supplied upon request. My point is that UNTIL a source has been requested it should not be assumed a foregone conclusion that a statement is original research. There is no requirement to attach a source to a statement. Therefore, to help verify if something is original research one should request (or look for) a source. That should be made clear in this article. RJII 14:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Point to where someone has been accussed of OR before anyone asked for citations. I want to see what you are complaining about. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 17:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't been dealing in controversial articles. That's all I deal with. I can't even count the number of times I've seen myself or others being accused of original research without being asked for sources or things being outright deleted as "original research" without a source ever being requested. This is routine on Wikipedia. RJII 17:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If this is how you respond to requests for citations, I don't need to spnd any more time on this. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 19:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The complaint is that unsourced information is summarily deleted. The solution is to source the information and not give any excuse to delete it, simple as that. Coyoty 01:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So attach a footnoted source for every single sentence in Wikipedia? That's ludicrous. RJII 04:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If the information in each sentence is from a different source, then it will require a citation for each sentence. But, in most circumstances that will not be necessary. There is nothing ludricous about that. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Original information exception

This is very similar to the "no need to cite" discussion above, but that seems more oriented to cases were a person has citations but they don't see it necessary to put it up. I want a clarification on when the information in the article falls far below the "research-bar" and is just information. For example, if you work at Microsoft and happen to know that the new version of Windows had been given the in-house nickname "skyway" and you wanted to put that information on the entry, would you have to cite it? You didn't do research, you are the person people would goto for research. Nor is this the sort of thing that would be published in a "peer-reviewed" journal. This is a far-cry than the crack-pot physics theories wikipedia is trying to rule out by this policy. What if you worked with a philosopher who had an entry on wikipedia (as Susan Haack has an entry, a woman who is currently my prof) and you happened to know her middle-name? Or nick-name in the department? That sort of information is likely never to be published anywhere to be cited. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to need such citation to be allowed. What I am arguing for is an Original information exception to the No original research policy. This is for information that is too "small" to be research and information that the poster of the information might be an adequate source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atfyfe (talk • contribs)

If the information is notable, it will almost certainly be published somewhere. To use your example, I'd be surprised if Windows in-house nicknames aren't published, or mentioned in interviews, etc. And it isn't at all clear to me how one would define "small" for such purposes. JoshuaZ 22:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, this goes back to the Emo (slang) article, where you're dealing with no verifiable sources and no unbiased common knowledge (just look at all the hateful comments left in the article's vandalism). There is a lot of notable, unbiased information, but the only place where it has been published is on Wikipedia. All other possible resources are personal sites or sites making biased attacks. I'm sure there are more examples than this topic, but this is the only one I've personally dealt with.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 23:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Remember, verifiability is a policy. We only get around to considering 'notability' if the material is verifiable. One problem is, if you can't supply reliable sources for verification, how do you know it's notable? -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

See: "Talk:Unofficial combat badges of the United States Army" for the origins of this question. The kind of situation there is probably what the user is talking about. -Husnock 15:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Tertiary Sources

SV, you are incorrect in your quick RV comment about tertiary srouces. Wikipedia contains a number of 1911 Britannica articles that are out of copyright. These are Tertiary sources (just like Wikipedia). Tertiary sources out of copyright can be included. In no stretch of the imagination does copying a tertiary source make it a secondary source. --Tbeatty 21:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a level of abstraction between copying a (out of copyright) tertiary source and citing it for a fact. I would much prefer that we stick to the former and avoid the latter. --Mmx1 03:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

These are not copies. They are Wikipeida articles that are edited like any other article. The rules are for articles. We simply allow these "tertiary sourced" articles to exist. They don't violate the rules so the rules shouldn't be written to imply that they do.--Tbeatty 05:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We cannot say that sources are not required, only to say later that they are. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We have have a number of usnourced 1911 Brittanica artilces. In fact it's a Wiki project. We take them on faith from a tertiary source. --Tbeatty 05:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The 1911 Brittanica is the source for those articles. When we put the {{1911}} tag on articles, we are citing the source. Whether we copy the PD text with no changes, or copyedit it, the 1911 Brittanica is still the source. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a source, just not a very good one. We all know there are things that are flat out wrong in 1911EB, and need to be edited out. What's really needed is higher quality sources for that material. - Taxman ^Talk 13:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but until more reliable sources are found, we go with verifiability, not truth. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read the context of this discussion. Brittanica is a tertiary source. Citing Brittanica is citing a tertiary source. If the edit was to make it policy that tertiary sources cannot be used, then the Brittanica project would be against policy. --Tbeatty 16:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

And in practice, it is not always easy to decide whether a source is secondary or tertiary. If an author refers to both primary and secondary sources in writing an article or a book, is that work then secondary (as it uses primary sources) or tertiary (as it also uses secondary sources)? -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 21:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you ae mixing up two issues. First, I personally am against using encyclopedia artiles as sources, NOT because they violate NOR (they do not) but bcause I think it is just silly or one encyclopedia to use another encyclopedia as a reference. If the other encyclopedia is so good, why should people com here and not go there? Moreover, what makes that encyclopedia any good is that it is based on real esearch; so should we. Second, what is the specific status of 1911 Bitanica aticles here? I suggest that they are not sources in the sense of this policy. When Wikipedia started out it had few articles and great ambitions. One way to bridge the gap is to ceat stubs - otherwise crappy articles, really just placeholdes for future, real articles. Since 1911 EB is public, we in efect used it to create stubs. In other words, no one usede the 1911 EB as a source for an article, the original and entire 1911 EB article was used as a place-holder. As we work, I think most would agree we need to rewrite all these EB articles, and replace them with good up-to-date articles. Until we do that, someone using Wikipedia can at least read the 1911 article. Using 1911 means we have far fewer gaps than new and groing encyclopeida would normally have. That is all. It is not a real article, or a source for an article, just a stop-gap place-holder, a temporary thing. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Help with possible original research

Hey, I need help at Earth Day. There might be some original research involves and the page needs a neutral third person to check it. __earth ^(Talk) 03:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What counts as a reputable publication?

What does this section have to do with this policy? Hyacinth 22:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

1. It is an obligation of Wikipedia to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable, and so we rely only on credible or reputable published sources. See " What counts as a reputable publication?" and " Reliable sources" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable. john k 22:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is (and I thought that this was clearly stated, but now I can't find it in the article,... then where did I see the explanation?), that it's still original research if you use your own homepage as source. Harald88 20:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar?

Is this recently added sidebar {{Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things}} appropriate in a policy page? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I kind of like it, Jossi, but I won't mind if you want to remove it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Let me try to briefly summarize this surprising policy and its blatant contradiction with copyright policy, as I see it (please see Wikipedia:Copyrights):

One: No new, previously unpublished material is allowed. Fine. Strange, but fine.

Two: If a contributor writes a new article (or adds new text to an existing article), based on previously published materials (books, magazines, webpages, newspapers, etc.) then almost invariably a self-appointed vigilante will appear, will decide that such material is, must be, in violation of such "copyrighted" reputable publications, and will delete or slash it, and altogether cripple it miserably.

This is no invention, it's a fact that happens too often in Wikipedia. Wonder how much traffic is devoted just to battles consisting of removal and replenishment of materials in articles. I also wonder how, despite this seemingly perennial confrontation, has Wikipedia managed to reach the astounding number of a million-plus articles. Amazing.

Can someone please help clarify this confusion? AVM 20:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question is. In order to avoid OR, we should cite our sources, and in order to avoid accusations of plagiarism or copyright violation, we should also cite our sources. So the two policies are mutually reinforcing in that sense, not contradictory. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We're looking for an encyclopedic summary of published mainstream thought on our subjects. The only time any real conflict between WP:NOR and copyright concerns should ever emerge is in cases of there being only a single source on the subject of our article. If that happens, don't get too ambitious; we need to then restrain ourselves to brief paraphrase. If you have an example of your concern, feel free to link to it. Jkelly 20:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi AVM. There isn't really a contradiction. Wikipedia is not a place to add original research. In other words, editors shouldn't add articles that are something they made up. As for the ssecond point, copyright law applies to Wikipedia as it applies elsewhere. So editors should not just copy material wholesale from somewhere else because it is copyrighted. However, copyright covers the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. So if you write an article on MSNBC (say) that describes a new fad for chocolate-covered bats, then you can't just cut and paste the lietral text of the MSNBC article into a Wikipedia article, but you can add an article about chocolate-covered bats and reference the MSNBC article to provide a verifiable source showing its not original research.

This is how Wikipedia works. Of course, my characterization of copyright above is a simplification, but its generally accurate. Good luck, Gwernol 20:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)