Wikipedia talk:No original research

Lead

We had agreement last month to reword this a little, but it didn't get done at the time, so I've just added it. It says the same thing, but the writing's clearer. Reproducing below part of the discussion from last month. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Previous

Current

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. All material added to articles on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed in the text. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that citations must be added for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. "No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.

Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources. What this means is that all material added to Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist. If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. "No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, that jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks very good to me. The first paragraph is wonderful. My only suggestion is to replace "but we know that sources for that" in the second paragraph with "but also because we know that sources for that" or "and also because ...". — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good re-write. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That would turn it into a slightly different point.

My suggestion is: "'Paris is the capital of France' needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist."

Your suggestion is: "'Paris is the capital of France' needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but also because we know that sources for that sentence exist."

The first says it's okay without a source, and it doesn't violate NOR because we know that sources exist for it. The second says it's okay without a source because we know that sources exist for it. But we often know that sources exist for something and yet we still need to see them. The point here is that it's okay without a source for a different reason, namely that no one is likely to object. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The point of the NOR policy is that what we call "original research" comes down to claims that are not already published. So claims that really are already published elsewhere are not "original research" for us regardless whether sources are explicitly cited. Indeed, according to the second paragraph of the policy as it stand, what matters is "you must be able to cite reliable sources" (my bold). We might say that we don't know whether some particular claim has been published before, and so we need to see sources to tell whether the claim is original research. But if we already know that the claim is published elsewhere, then we know we are able to cite sources for it, so it is not original research here. So one reason we know that the claim about Paris is not original research is that we know we can cite sources for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my only point is that the reason "Paris is the capital of France" doesn't need a source is not that we know sources exist for it. We know sources exist for lots of things that we insist on sources for. That we know there's a source may be a necessary condition of not asking for one, but it's not a sufficient condition. The reason we don't ask for a source (per V) is that we know no one will reasonably object to the sentence. The first version of the sentence I proposed avoids all these issues. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. Editors don't usually require citations for statements of plain facts for which everyone knows that sources exist.

I don't think that you haven't taken the logic back far enough. WP:V does not require a source for "Paris is the capital of France" because no one will "reasonably object" to it. Now: Why will no one "reasonably object" to this statement? Well, because everyone knows is sourceable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Refinements of wording: I recommend the following slight changes to the wording, to provide clarification of meaning:

• Old: "what we call original research"
• New: "what we call original research" [with italics]
• Old: "doesn't need a source"     [confusing as just "source"]
• New: "doesn't need a cited source"
• Old: "in harmony"   [sounds too easy or too smooth]
• New: "in conjunction"

Should other phrases be adjusted? -Wikid77 (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the lead is only a part of it, but I think that about half of all of mis-uses of this policy and it's biggest fundamental problem could be solved by merely giving more weight to the "challenged or likely to be challenged" part of this policy (quoted from wp:V). Including adding something on the order of "if the accuracy of a statement is challenged, if it is not directly supported per wp:verifiability, it is to be removed. This adds the hint that a challenge (however brief and unsupported the challenge is) of the accuracy of the statement is required (not merely a claim of "OR" or "Synth") in order to have it removed. Again, the disparity between reality (about 1/2 of the sentences in WP are from knowledge/synth and undisputed rather than from statements in references) and the rule leaves it open to abuse, and such has been widespread. I believe that this subtle change would help fix that.

A better example than "Paris is the capital of France" would be "most people believe that the sun will rise tomorrow". We have no reason to believe that such a poll exists to reference. If someone challenges the accuracy/correctness of the statement, they can remove it for being unsupported. However, there would be nothing implying they can remove it for merely claiming it is OR/Synth.

One could claim that this is the purview of wp:V, not wp:OR, but in reality the subject of wp:or is a subset of wp:v and so it has to deal with that. If it is going to make up what are essentially wp:V rules, it has to do so in a way that will prevent them from being widely abused. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that there is an advantage to retaining "original thought". We don't want to get trapped in "but it's just a new idea I had, not research!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see is that "advances a position" is not well enough defined. I agree with the thought. The problem is that there can be synthesis that doesn't "advance a position" but does clarify or illuminate. The bad effect is that while the wording forbids synthesis that "advances a position" (a good prohibition) the practice too often is the prohibition of all synthesis, even when that synthesis doesn't "advance a position," it clarifies or illuminates. Such clarification or illumination is one of the best attributes of an encyclopedia and ought to be encouraged.

Yes, that can be difficult - but that difficulty is inherent in the nature of a (good) encyclopedia. It would be grievously wrong to throw out one of the best attributes of an encyclopedia through the over-application of a rule. The question is "Is this instance of synthesis one which advances a new position or is it one that clarifies or enhances?" That is, does the synthesis illuminate some aspect of a topic or is it an attempt to manipulate sources in order to create false favoritism for an idea? "False favoritism" implies that sources are being misused in order to create flawed support for a "novel" idea.

Perhaps what is needed is examples of valid synthesis, synthesis that does illuminate, does not "advance new ideas." (Here I am strongly attached to valid syllogism: if both the major premise and the minor premise are valid in an encyclopedic sense then I favor the embracing of the conclusion, whether or not such conclusion has been explicitly published elsewhere. This statement does hinge on the meaning of "valid." I embrace meaningful and thoughtful enforcement of "valid" in this context. I am not advocating any sort of loophole that allows actual "original research" to intrude. I do not believe and I think the responsible persons who contribute to Wikipedia similarly do not believe that original research is bad or invalid. The assertion and the policy is, simply, that Wikipedia is not the place for such to appear. Wikipedia and its supporters and maintainers do not assume the burden of vetting original research. All such belongs elsewhere. This prohibition, however, should not be interpreted to forbid all thought. "Thought" and "encyclopedia" are not disjoint. An encyclopedia that excludes thought is a weak encyclopedia.) Minasbeede (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a little more discussion on a re-write of the heart of one of the core content policies. I'll add this to the WP:centralized discussion list.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• "but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged." must? Sole Soul (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good (though why we need three different pages saying pretty much the same thing is still beyond me).--Kotniski (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove "original thought"

Why remove it? I thought it added to the policy.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"The term "original research"..."

This sentence defines the term by what it is not (i.e. published). It would be better to begin by trying to explain what original research is. The previous version had the same problem, but was a little better because it tried to explain what the policy includes rather than defining a term.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians

It's not a word that is in common usage. This could be reworded or linked to WP:Wikipedians.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own..."

I liked the link to WP:NOT#OR--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged."

I don't think it adds much, and using "source" without explaining that it must be published and reliable opens the policy to arguments.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Paris is the capital of France" example

What aspect of the policy does this example illustrate?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The "current version" doesn't look like an improvement over the "previous version" and one of the reasons may be the Paris example. Perhaps we should review the guidance on writing a lead that is given in WP:LEAD, e.g.,

"The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."

Just my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That quote is good to keep in mind when writing or editing a lead. Examples are used to illustrate specific aspects of a policy, so they generally don't belong in the lead, which should be summarizing the policy.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the author doesn't want to explain this proposed change, I'll try to answer my own question. The example is about material that "needs no source." That is the domain of the Burden of evidence section of WP:Verifiability, not NOR. The example doesn't belong in this policy.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"If no source exists..."

The same problem as with "but a source must exist..." (above)--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable ≠ Original research

The recent changes leave us with a claim that all unverifiable claims are always original research. I don't think this is true, either according to how Wikipedia editors apply these policies (WP:V and WP:NOR are generally taken to be different policies), or according to common-sense understandings of original research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought they were the same thing, or at least, "original research" is a particular case of unverifiable information. What might the difference be?--Kotniski (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

All material for which a reliable published source doesn't exist is by definition OR, as we use the term. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So in fact we can merge this page with WP:V?--Kotniski (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That was the point of Wikipedia:Attribution, which didn't work. I have a mind to rewrite and re-propose it, with the current policies as summary-style sections of it, because it makes no sense to have them as separate pages. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at User:Kotniski/Neu? Is it a possible starting point?--Kotniski (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely is, and thank you for writing it. I was going to have a go tomorrow writing the kind of thing I had in mind, and hoped we could compare notes. We had lots of support for WP:ATT. I was getting emails from people saying they'd understood the policies for the first time, and that was with a version of ATT that was much wordier than it needed to be, to satisfy people who wanted minimal change. I've never given up entirely on seeing them combined. If we retain V, NOR, and NPOV summary-style, but have a freshly written (and very tight) ATT as an overall summary, that might satisfy everyone. But it would have to be written on user subpages to start with. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be more practical to retrieve sections of ATT which have consensus, and reword the various policy pages accordingly. Summary style for sections which are already verbally identical may be less controversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that wp:or 's topic is a subset of wp:ver's topic. Both need work to reduce the current widespread abuse of them by deletionists and POV pushers. But WP:Ver;s topic includes things that wp:or's doesn't. For example, For example, statements (right or wrong, sourced or un-sourced) which by their nature are of 100% objective facts.North8000 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that North's understanding is typical of the community's view.

An unintentional typo is a simple example of an unverifiable, non-NOR statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So if V is basically just NOR with a slightly (and fairly trivially) wider scope, we don't need the two separate pages, right? It's just an obvious fork.--Kotniski (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In terms of advice pages, the community "needs" whatever pages it chooses to have. So far, the community has chosen to have separate pages. There may (or may not) be some practical value to having separate pages, since "violates NOR" gives the offender a better idea of what the problem is compared to "isn't attributable", but consensus is king on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I was an offender off the streets, I'd be far more likely to understand "isn't attributable" than "violates NOR", but in any case, the shortcut "NOR" could still link to the combined page or a particular section of it.--Kotniski (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

From a TOPIC standpoint, WP:NOR is a subset of wp:ver. I think that it's rightful place is to exist seperately and expand on the topic of it's title.

For policy organizational purposes, we have to set aside the thought that unsourced = OR and OR = unsourced. Separate policies for synonyms would obviously be a mistake.

From a CURRENT CONTENT standpoint, WP:NOR covers WP:NOR specific content, and then covers things that should rightfully be in WP:VER (or overlaps with wp:ver) and I think should be moved there. For example, the whole Primary/Secondary/Tertiary section relates to WP:VER in general and is not unique to WP:NOR. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"advances a position"

In the phrase "advances a position" that is used in WP:NOR, what does "position" mean? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It means a point of view (explicit or implicit) which is novel, or otherwise not directly supported by the provided sources. Crum375 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A "position" is any interpretation or conclusion (either stated or implied). What the policy is repeatedly saying is that in order to state an interpretation or conclusion in an article, you need a source that directly states that interpretation or conclusion. In the case of WP:SYN, it notes that you should not put two bits of information together in a way that forms an interpretation or conclusion... unless there is a source that takes the same information and reaches the same interpretation or conclusion. If it isn't in a source, we should not say it in an article. Blueboar (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the basic dictionary definition explains it well: wikt:position, #4 "An opinion, stand, or stance." (example: "My position on this issue is unchanged.") WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition of NOR

Not sure what's going on with the recent edits, but this has been part of NOR since the year dot, and indeed is the definition of OR. Something for which no source exists is OR.

North8000, what makes you think this is new? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The "new" part was my mistake......I should have looked back 20 or 30 edits instead of at just the recent ones. Sorry. North8000 (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

But folks, the term "fiddling while Rome burns" comes to mind with the complete resistance to any changes. Wikipedia has changed big time over the last few years. It has switched to these policies being widely used for abuse, opposite to their intent. The creators are leaving. North8000 (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not just 20 or 30 edits back; this is what the policy means, N, and always has. Something for which no source exists is what we call OR on Wikipedia, because it means that a Wikipedian made it up. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

N, just to pick up on your point about change, what change would you like to see? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I could do a more thorough, organized proposal, but here would be the gist of it: As a preface, 90% of the statements in Wikipedia violate a strict and thorough interpretation of WP:NOR+WP:VER. And about 90% of the cited sources in WP violate WP:VER's requirements for sources. So then where does that leave us? It them wide open for abuse by POV pushers, deletionists and other social misfits who are lording over and chasing away the creators of good content. The fixes would be:

1. The required strength of sourcing goes up if the statement itself is challenged (however brief and unsupported the challenge) as being incorrect, controversial or truly original thought/research per the outside world definition of the term), and down if the statement itself is not so-challenged.

2. Second (and more simply and more importantly) would be a guideline that says that in order to do the more extreme measures of deleting or prominent tagging in the name of OR, you must make a claim (however brief and unsupported) that the statement is incorrect, controversial, or truly original thought/research per the outside world definition of the term. This simple and "minor" change would have a huge positive impact on what has been happening to Wikipedia.

Thanks for listening. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with the argument that the NOR policy is misused, because I've been on the receiving end of the misuse (as I saw it) a few times myself. It stems from two things: first, as you say, POV pushers use it to remove material that isn't nailed down a thousand fold. But I don't think that's the main issue. The main issue in my view is that lots of people have difficulty summarizing source material accurately, or recognizing an accurate summary when they see it. We used to be taught how to do this in school from a very early age (primary school), but it looks to me as though it's not widely taught anymore, because it's one of the key issues I see Wikipedians struggling with. This is why you see so many articles as quote farms, because people are worried about trying to paraphrase what the sources are saying.

When people do paraphrase, it can lead to claims of OR, even when you're correctly summarizing the source's key points. I don't know what to do about this, because it's not the fault of the policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 13:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, it's nearly impossible to talk about wp:OR separately from wp:ver. For example, the core of what wp:or says is sourcing, which is defined by wp:ver. I just happen to be talking here rather than there because, in practice, "OR" & WP:OR is a main "pointy end of the spear" of wp:ver.

In practice, the well written summary that you describe can easily get deleted as OR by any deletionist or POV pusher. . My idea #2 would 90% solve that. The deleter would have to make at least a brief unsupported challenge of your summary in order to delete it. Sounds minor, but I think that it would make a huge change. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

North, you have linked POV pushers and "deletionists" several times in your comments... I know what a POV pusher is, but what do you mean by "deletionist"? Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to appear to link them, (they aren't linked) just to list the two most common situations of abuse of the policies. I've seen the term "deletionist" used a lot, I though it was sort of known. These are people who's main "contribution" is attacking, tagging and deleting other people's work rather than creating or adding to material. Out in the real world these people are kept at bay, they just bark at the parade rather than leading, following or cheering it. In Wikipedia they are in hog heaven. Wikipedia is like making it legal for them to go out in front of their house and throw rocks at any car that is 1 mph over the limit, which is 90% of everybody. North8000 (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of truth in that, North, but the way to counter it is to get to know the content policies really well, then create your material in accordance with them. That gives it more sticking power. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The (fixable) problem is that it's usually impossible or hugely difficult to meet them 100% as written.North8000 (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The key is to find good sourcing and stick closely to what it says. If you have a specific example you need help with, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't mean this to be about any of my issues but one of those might be a good example. North8000 (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re SlimVirgin's remarks "The main issue in my view is that lots of people have difficulty summarizing source material accurately, or recognizing an accurate summary when they see it. ... This is why you see so many articles as quote farms, because people are worried about trying to paraphrase what the sources are saying." -

Venturing out from the safety of quoting sources, to contributing by summarizing sources in one's own words, may be difficult for some editors because WP:NOR is unclear to them and they have of fear of making a mistake. An example of the lack of clarity in WP:NOR is the use of the word "position". From the discussion so far in the previous section, it appears that the word "position" is used in WP:NOR as a term with a different definition than what is found in dictionaries. Yet the term "position" is not defined in WP:NOR. When the word "position" was first used in WP:NOR, its meaning was consistent with the definition found in dictionaries. Somehow over the years it has come to mean something different that has never been specifically defined in WP:NOR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A position means a point of view, a stance, a take. We use it here the way anyone else uses it, so far as I know. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Bob, regarding the "fear of OR", it's easier than you think. All you need to do is summarize the gist of what you understand the source is saying, without making it say, or seem to say, something it isn't saying (i.e. "advancing a position"). If someone disagrees, then you'll need to hammer out a consensual version. That's all there is to it. Crum375 (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

North, I think that your claim that "90% of the statements in Wikipedia" is gross and unwarranted hyperbole. I'd bet, in fact, that you can't identify even two articles that reach your 90% level. I just looked through a couple of Special:Random pages, and actually found zero unverifiable statements (which surprised me). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll go you one better than that. I'll let you pick a typical article (not too short) and I'll find and detail a lot of WP:NOR/VER violations in it. North8000 (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Try Castanea mollissima (aka Chinese Chessnut tree) Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than "typical" I think that you have picked one that is in the top 1% most bulletproof in this area. An expertly written, thoroughly sourced article on a narrow, mature scientific topic. But, so much the better, I accept the challenge. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OK... try Abraham Lincoln... Nirvana (band)... or Great Seal of the United States. Or are these not "typical" either? (if so, what do you consider "typical"?) Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

All three of those are more typical, but I said I was fine with the first one. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Will probably take me a week or 2 but I'm going to do this. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "If you are able to discover something new..."

The sentence "If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery. Once your discovery has been published in a reliable source, it may be referenced." was recently removed from the Reliable sources section, without discussion. Before editing the policy, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I echo that... when you are trying to edit core policy, it is vital to go slowly and deliberately... a step at a time and with full discussion. There has been a flurry of edits, counter edits, reverts and un-reverts during the last few weeks, I now have no idea what is being proposed or why. I am trying my best to resist a knee jerk reaction, but I am sorely tempted to simply revert the page back to the "long standing consensus version" that existed a few months ago so that I can request a line by line review of the changes. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):It appears that it was first removed as indicated by this diff. Only reason give was "tightening". Perhaps it was inadvertent, since it is a long standing part of WP:NOR and I seem to recall using it myself in discussions of article editing with other editors. It is useful in clarifying the limits of the last sentence of the previous paragraph there. Please get consensus before removing again. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The more repetitive policies are, the less people can make their way through them. It can be important to stress points more than once, but I don't think this is one of them, given how obvious it is. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If you feel there is repetition, perhaps you should modify the other part of the policy page? In any case, please get consensus before proceeding on the project page with your desired changes. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have reverted your changes back into the project page, and thus you are trying to dictate by edit warring. Pardon me for not accepting the invitation to edit war with you. I've done enough reverting to suit me. However, others should feel free to make a single reversion if they don't approve of your tactics. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Bob, the policy needs to be moderately well-written, and not unduly repetitive, or making points willy-nilly. We have a section about editors inserting their own material, and what's allowed and what's not allowed. That sentence about discoveries, if you insist on having it, belongs in that section, which is where I placed it.

My preference is to remove it, because if anyone is able to get beyond the lead and still think WP might be the place to publish their new discovery, then editing an encyclopedia is probably not for them. But if you insist on it, at least allow it to go in the section that's specifically about editors adding their own work. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on consensus. If you are not able to abide by editing in an orderly manner, perhaps you should consider participating somewhere else. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In spite of all this, I looked at what you are trying to do. It seems OK for the most part. All I would suggest is a change in the order of the sentences to get to the self-cite part first, and delete the sentence re premier which doesn't seem to be about self-citing, since it is simply about OR and might be better elsewhere. Where, is for another discussion about there being a section missing about the basic concept of OR, as defined in Wikipedia. I made the change, so let's see what happens WP:BRD. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We generally don't use WP:BRD on policy pages, except for very minor changes, or when other methods of consensus building have stalled.

I think it's important to keep the "If you ... discover something new.." sentence. It addresses the discovery aspect of original research in a way that is not found elsewhere in the policy. It might work better in a different section, but I'd like to see it retained somewhere. This looked okay. Changing the order of those sentences in Citing oneself is fine with me.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the idea of that "discover" sentence belongs somewhere. It seems to be at the heart of OR and the misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. For now, adding that sentence to the self-cite section is OK with me, until a better place is found for it. Also, I think it is important to keep the self-cite sentence "If an editor has published..." as the lead sentence, since it best explains the main idea of the section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC on merging Words to avoid into Words to watch

• Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. There's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a project to streamline the MoS. One part of the proposal is to merge Words to avoid, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid neologisms into a new page, Words to watch (W2W). Fresh input would be appreciated at the RfC. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

New section to discuss NOR in context of purpose and limits of Wikipedia

I think there needs to be a section in this policy page that discusses NOR in the context of the purpose and limits of Wikipedia, i.e. it is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that we need to recognize what the real issues are and what you want that section to "weigh in" on. Practically nobody is arguing for putting "new discoveries" "new ideas" "original writing" etc. yet the 100% policy status quo folks keep caricaturing folks seeking changes as seeking such. Most calls for change are subtler changes in wp:nor+wp:ver that would solve numerous current problems. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand your comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Is your idea to:

- just reinforce that Wikipedia isn't for new discoveries, theories, ideas etc.

OR

- reinforce that every statement that doesn't have a wp:ver grade reference that literally says the same thing can be deleted

North8000 (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me try to clarify. I'll take it one step at a time. I felt that explaining NOR and OR could best be done by first simply explaining what's the purpose of Wikipedia. Simply stated, Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize existing published information. I didn't see this simple, yet important, statement anywhere in WP:NOR. There is a statement in the lead that says, "What this means is that all material added to Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." But I don't think that gives the reader a simple and clear idea of Wikipedia's purpose. (Am I being clear so far re this first step in clarifying what I was thinking?) --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose is to be a free reliable encyclopaedia that can be edited by anyone. That it summarizes existing information rather than publishing original research derives from that rather than being its purpose. Dmcq (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. And "derives from" doesn't mean it shouldn't be said (while acknowledging such). And I think that "big picture" statements (vs. considering granular level dogma to be wp's "mission" )would set it on a course to fixing wp:nor/wp:ver to avoid the problems that they are inadvertently causing.North8000 (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Re Dmcq's comment, "Wikipedia's purpose is to be a free reliable encyclopaedia that can be edited by anyone." - The definitions of encyclopedia and the description in the article Encyclopedia, don't seem to limit an encyclopedia to existing published research. So that characterization alone may be problematic in a policy about NOR. Characterizing Wikipedia's purpose as a summary of existing published information seems more simple, clear and accurate, and it lays the foundation for discussing NOR in Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the big picture in that area is RELIABLE. And that WP:VER and WP:NOR are there to and should be defined to serve that purpose, not to try to consider themselves and their precepts to be mission statements. North8000 (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>That's correct. WP:NOR is not here to be the mission statement of Wikipedia but to support it. Perhaps you or someone else might direct us to the area of Wikipedia where the official mission statement of Wikipedia is written? Then we can use it to guide WP:NOR. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Help:About says: "Wikipedia's intent is to cover existing knowledge which is verifiable from other sources, original research and ideas are therefore excluded." Crum375 (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Is the following sentence consistent with the above statement?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's roughly equivalent, but I like the current ABOUT text better, because it includes the concept of NOR more explicitly. Crum375 (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Re "It's roughly equivalent" - Good.

Re "but I like the current ABOUT text better, because it includes the concept of NOR more explicitly." - Actually, the sentence I suggested does include the concept of NOR explicitly when it said, "not meant to be a source of information that has not been published." I didn't use the term "original research" because I felt that the term needs clarification and I wanted to start off the section with familiar language that is clear. Explaining what is meant by "original research (OR)" will follow. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Outdent

Folks are trying to synthesize wp's mission from (their preferred) policies which is backwards. The top level statement of purpose (from the wp bylaws) is

"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

"In coordination with a network of chapters and individual volunteers, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity."

Followed by the statement of vision "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. "

Followed by the relevant part of the WP Values "An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community. We believe that this mission requires thriving open formats and open standards on the web to allow the creation of content not subject to restrictions on creation, use, and reuse."

The policies should implement the above rather than looking in a mirror to "see" their mission. North8000 (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That's Wikimedia, not Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I'll have to look some more North8000 (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I checked and Wikimedia is the name of the Wikipedia organization. And so I submit that my comments are still applicable.

The first sentence in WP:Policies and guidelines says '... and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia.', which is an edited version of Larry Sangers statement in the very first version of that document. The original from 1st November 2001 was 'Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia--indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth. We also want Wikipedia to become a reliable (probably, peer-approved) resource.' Dmcq (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Great statement that you found. I don't know whether we are agreeing or disagreeing. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I checked and Wikimedia is the name of the Wikipedia organization. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia here means the encyclopaedia part of Wikimedia, in fact in this context only the english version. It is self governing by consensus under normal circumstances and what is said about Wikimedia is just too far distant. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Highest level is always the most distant. But I think that the statement that you found and quoted is both high level and a very useful (and more useful) implementation of such. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to put a mission statement in the NOR policy (or any of our other policies)... if you want to create WP:Mission statement that is fine, but let's not clutter up all our polices. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

For reference, here is the subject sentence.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I would not call that a mission statement, so I will clarify my comment... I do think that sentence is important, as it directly explains why we do not allow original research. It could be the very first sentence of the policy. That said, I don't think we need to expand on it or create an entire section devoted to explaining it. Blueboar (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes have been made in the lead towards topic of WP:V

Just for everyone's information, here was the state of the lead on February 4, 2010 and the state of the lead now. Note that the changes have mainly put more of the topic of WP:V into the lead.

The lead - 16:58, 4 February 2010

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

"No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.

The lead - now 17:31, 1 May 2010

Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources.

What this means is that all material added to Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence can be provided if needed. If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented.

"No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, that jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This page and WP:V are forks of each other, to all practical purposes. There's no reason to keep them separate.--Kotniski (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)