Wikipedia talk:No original research

Should concept maps be removed because they are original research or synthesis?

This guideline states

Because of copyright laws in a number of countries, there are relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under the GFDL, CC-BY-SA, or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy....

Now there has been a concept map (see discussion here) similar as other illustrations, if you compare it at Google images. Yet this picture is now removed ,with the argument Sorry its original research or synthesis... Find a source before you restore it. Is this a new policy? Can somebody please explain. -- Mdd (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be discussion before removal. Are the components of the concept map and their relationship to one another supported by sources? This would have to be discussed, perhaps in an RfC. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In this particular matter there are clearly multiple links to existing sources:

• In the summary of the image (see here) the author has explicitly stated that he "was inspired to create this graphic after reading" two books.
• The terms in the concept map relates to terms used in the field. There is nothing original about it.
• The concept map lay-out is in a cycle, which is similar to other published concept maps

What more can you add as prove? The requirement Find a source... seems rather irrational here. -- Mdd (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to agree that with the links to what "inspired" the graph and that it does not seem exceedingly far off from those, that the image is okay; the image may be "novel" but it is based on what appears to be readily accepted terms and correlations for that field, as well as using similar imagery; it is no more novel than us using a text description to summarize and describe the concepts themselves from available sources. I would definitely add the two sources as references in the article in question to the image caption to be clear it is not OR. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A discussion on this subject has to be specific. What specific objections can be articulated? Can those specific objections be responded to? I don't think we can resolve this until at least one specific objection is articulated. Bus stop (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The general element in this discussion-item is the question, if you can remove any concept map in Wikipedia just by using the argument First find a source...? And what kind of extra source can one possibly ask for, when the "inspired on...", "resemblance with...", and "no original terms" is already given?

I don't understand, what is asked for? The image cannot be a copy of an existing image. Neither can it be extracted from one other existing image, because in both cases there will be a copyright violation.

Keep asking First find a source..., seems like asking for the impossible..!?. -- Mdd (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

To my mind, a map (whether user created or not) should always illustrate things mentioned in the text of the article... and since the text of the article should be supported by citations, there should be no need to cite the map - because what it illustrates should already be cited in the text of the article. To put this another way... it is not always OR to include a user created image. It's only OR if the image introduces things NOT discussed (and cited) in the text of the article.

Now... in attempting to illustrate the text, a specific map may contain errors or biases. THAT is a flaw with the map that would need to be fixed... but that flaw has more to do with our WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view policies than with our WP:No original research policy. The map may be erroneous or biased, but the research that went into creating the map isn't original. Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. Another thing that could be said is that if the image makes a point beyond the text. If it supports a conclusion not cited, eg the concept map displays a symmetry, or a cyclicity, or that one part is central and another is peripheral, only then are you getting into dangerous WP:SYNTH ground, and if the article then mentions this thing seen in the user-created image, then you have crossed WP:SYNTH. I think this would not be typical. Normally, a concept map illustrates connections that are not in doubt, and they can be considered to be similar to a table of contents. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A diagram is just another way to summarize information. The information in the diagram is subject to WP:V. In practice the relevant citations might appear in the article text, or if that is implausible (as in most cases of a geographical map) the map should have a source. The question in this case is whether the diagram presents novel information. It isn't OR if it is a fair summary of reliable sources but those sources should be provided in order to make the information verifiable. Zero^talk 00:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If I read a different two books I could produce a different diagram, I could even produce a different diagram from my own published and referenced material on the subject. The diagram in question is selective, confuses two concepts (systems dynamics and complexity theory) and in general is a pretty primitive image. For a diagram to summarise a field it would need to be sourced to secondary material. The whole article is in bad need of a major rewrite, removing misleading diagrams is one step in that process. I have read the two books by the way and the diagram does not summarise what they say ----Snowded ^TALK 02:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Snowded's opinion here that the diagram is misleading should be substantiated by a careful comparison with the text. If the text is wrong, and the diagram duplicates the text, then both have to be changed. Snowded's opinion that a diagram requires a secondary source is not valid. Under his criteria many diagrams on WP would not be acceptable until they were so close to published figures that a copyright waiver would be required. WP:OI explicitly allows original configurations for figures - all that is required is that they correctly describe the accompanying WP text, and that the accompanying text itself is not a violation of WP:OR. That seems to be Blueboar's opinion as well. Brews ohare (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You tried that view in respect of one of your own diagrams on another article and didn't get support Brews. Its not just that it has to reflect the text (it doesn't) but also that the text has to be representative of the field (it isn't). Your argument that any primary source can be used is being rejected at the moment on another panel ----Snowded ^TALK 06:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that a diagram is similar to prose in the respects that matter in this discussion. We want to know if the diagram makes an assertion that is not supported by reliable sources. What assertion in the diagram is not supported by reliable sources? Such an assertion would of course be original research. A difference here is that it is easy to change a sentence or two in a paragraph. It is more difficult to alter a diagram. Bus stop (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop: There are two broad classifications of of figure: the stand-alone figure that imparts information not contained in the WP article's text, and the accompanying figure that is intended simply to provide a visual interpretation of its accompanying WP text. The question of WP:OR is different for each. It seems you are directing attention to the stand-alone figure, which, as you point out, is very difficult to document if it has no accompanying text and is an original work. It is much easier to deal with the accompanying figure, because its only requirement is that it faithfully represent the accompanying text. That text can then be critiqued using WP policies, and if the text is given a green light, and if the figure faithfully depicts that text, a green light for the figure is there too. Of course, the figure can be critiqued for artistic merit and explanatory power, but that is different from requirements like WP:OR. Brews ohare (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that Blueboar's and Zero's comments represent good approaches on this issue. In general that the contents of these are subject to wp:ver, and that if the diagram simply illustrates what is in accompanying text (that meets wp:ver) then it is OK in this respect. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sound fair enough. In this specific matter of a concept map, this can be operationalized by making a comparison between the terms mentioned in the diagram, and the subjects involved. See for an example here. -- Mdd (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If a concept map illustrates the properly referenced text in the article then per several comments there can be no legitimate objection. However in this case it does not - that discussion however belongs on the talk page of the article itself.----Snowded ^TALK 18:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This becomes a never ending story, when an editor refuses to acknowledge that a "diagram simply illustrates what is in accompanying text": In this particular case that a concept map around the term "Complex Adaptive behavior" indeed relates to Complex adaptive system. -- Mdd (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I had the same issues with Snowded when trying to introduce this simple figure that illustrates the relation between a few items of vocabulary. Brews ohare (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Brews ohare—you mention stand-alone figures and accompanying figures. Is there ever a good reason for stand-alone figures? I am not saying they should be disallowed. I think they are the equivalent of an assertion in prose form for which a source is not provided. Obviously a source need not be provided for every assertion. But if an assertion is challenged by another editor then the response should be to try to find a source which provides support for the assertion. But an additional problem I think is that a complaint should be specific. A diagram is the equivalent of several sentences. It is less common for a whole paragraph to be considered original research than it is for one sentence to be considered original research. Therefore a complaint should be focussed and specific if a diagram is being challenged. A specifically articulated complaint can lead to a redrawn diagram. Or it can lead to proper sourcing in accompanying text. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I agree with you that complaints about figures or text should aim at specific improvements, rather than playing the three stooges. However, some editors are more into the latter. Brews ohare (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Drop the personal attacks please. First, the concept map should only reflect the text of the article "that depicts suggested relationships" so again to avoid any OR those suggested relationships also need to be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller: There is nothing 'personal' here. Just the general and obvious statement that some WP editors don't have making an encyclopedia as their top priority. Your observations on the issue about OR have been enunciated three or four times, and apply to accompanying figures. It appears that you wish to exclude stand-alone figures from WP, perhaps on the basis that they are too difficult to analyze in terms of WP:OR, and other policies for that matter? Or, maybe you are restricting your remarks to concept maps? Brews ohare (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Saying that some editors are "playing the three stooges" is hard to interpret in any other way. And why shouldn't I agree with other people? As for stand-alone figures, it would be useful to discuss some examples, but of course they would have to be sourced. Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's the latest in a long series of personal attacks Doug. Brews is frustrated in that over a series of articles he has not managed to get consensus for more or less all his edits. Every RfC he has raised has seen his ideas rejected. He is rapidly approaching a position on Philosophy articles where he is exhibiting the same behaviour that won him a permanent ban from all Physics articles. His latest approach is to try and change policy to permit his particular idiosyncrasies license; the most recent example of this is above around the use of primary sources and as you can see he goes on and on and on ...... In parallel with that he is making a series of general (indirect and direct) attacks that any editor who has the temerity to oppose him is not interested in the making an encyclopaedia and the like. There are some more personal remarks as well if you look at his edits. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Mdd, I have made specific points which demonstrate that the diagram does not reflect the text of the article let along the subject matter. Those points are made on the talk page of the article and you seem unable to do anything more than assert an opinion. Brews you have the same problems with multiple editors, arbcom and the whole wikipedia community. Forgive me if I find it difficult to take you seriously ----Snowded ^TALK 20:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Snowded—can you point out one or more specific assertions that you feel the diagram is making that you feel are untrue? Bus stop (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have on the talk page of the article Bus stop, but if you want a quick summary then the diagram represents a limited perspective. If you check on the talk page you will see references to key aspects omitted from the diagram which make it misleading. I have also pointed out there that the diagram clearly does not represent the text of the article itself. This is not a policy issue, it is a content issue for the talk page of the article ----Snowded ^TALK 03:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You say that "the diagram represents a limited perspective". That is too general, in my opinion. A diagram can certainly transgress our policy against WP:NOR. The question here is how we know whether or not a diagram has transgressed that policy. It is my contention that a potentially successful challenge to a diagram on these grounds (WP:NOR) calls for an articulated complaint that an assertion is not supported by any source. That is why I posed my question above: "can you point out one or more specific assertions that you feel the diagram is making that you feel are untrue?" If we are analyzing a diagram for possibly being in violation of WP:NOR we have to be able to scrutinize its assertions. There are always more than one assertion in a diagram. A diagram can be thought of as being akin to a series of sentences. Indeed the diagram we are discussing contains words, arrows, and other symbols representing relationships between concepts. It is my contention that a successful challenge to a diagram on the basis of WP:NOR should be based on challenges to specified assertions found within the diagram. This can also help to rectify a salvageable diagram. It may not be the case that the entire diagram has to be discarded. Discussion of WP:NOR problems found within a diagram can lead to reformulation of an only partially problematic diagram. Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That is an introductory phrase Bus stop, I go on here and more specifically in the article talk page to provide detail. I referenced that earlier if you check. If you want me to summarise fine. I have read both the books that the diagram's author claims to have used and I can't see how it relates to the material there. That aside those books are not remotely representative of the field and are not really used in the article. The article uses material from several people, notably Axelrod and Cohen and there is nothing in the diagram which illustrates that material (or much of the rest of the article). I have also made specific reference to several key aspects of CAS which are not present in the diagram which is misleading. Its historical dross that has needed a clear out for some time.----Snowded ^TALK 06:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thinking more about this, what is the purpose of a concept map in an article? Surely it is to present as a diagram the concepts or ideas expressed in the article or part of the artice. It would normally, I presume, work in some ways as an elaborate info box. This presents technical problems of course because articles change, with new concepts added, perhaps old ones reworked, etc. But as I've said before (and been jumped on for repeating it), any diagram needs to reflect the article, and that includes the sources used in the article. I can't see any reason for it to rely on sources not used in the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be many here that think the principles governing an accompanying figure are clear: it should accurately reflect the WP text, and if that text is compatible with WP policies, then so is the figure. Snowded has seen the writing on the wall here and now wishes to move the discussion back to the article Talk page where such a comparison can be pursued. It is to be hoped that in this instance my own experience with Snowded that raised the same issues when trying to introduce this simple figure will not be repeated on this article's Talk page, where the audience is smaller and the principles behind acceptance of the concept map are more easily buried by obfuscation of this agreed-upon principle. Brews ohare (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

One observation, I believe that concept diagrams contain a large amount of assertions. For example, lines in them (or lack of such) can be claims of equivalence or non-equivalence, of cause-effect relationships, a "has no effect on" claim, of groupings, of "is a subset of" "is not a subset of", "is a superset of", "is not a superset of", "is an instance of" and "is not an instance of" claims. Recognizing this, I think that a standard as high as it would be for those claims made in text would apply, and the most practical way would be to require (on otherwise-contested diagrams) that they only make assertions which are included in the text which has been subject to wp:ver. North8000 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree with North8000. A diagram is de facto subject to the same tests of validity as is text which has been the point all the way through. That has not been disputed, so questions as to this particular diagram belong on the talk page of the article. Brews NO ONE has ever supported you on your pleadings on text or diagrams over multiple articles, You have started to use policy forums as an alternative and again NO ONE has supported you. Now you are adding or rather extending your use of personal attacks. I encourage you to look at your block history and reflect. Much more of this and a permanent ban from editing all articles to do with Physics could be extended to the whole of wikipedia. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A summary?

What I see here is a whole lot of people voicing or agreeing with the general concept first espoused here by Zero and Blueboar. Basically that if it (only) shows what is clearly in article text which itself is in compliance with wp:ver, then it is OK with respect to wp:OR concerns. And I would note that this is a relatively high standard. (and maybe wording to this effect should be put into wp:nor?)(possibly with the burden for showing that in response to specific challenges placed on the person that wants to retain?) I also see that that respondents here are NOT giving a reading on the particular article/case/dispute and would not want the above to be interpreted/claimed as such such a reading. But perhaps, at the article, the above could be used to guide sorting it out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

North8000: A key part of your comment is that the proponent of a figure should provide a "response to specific challenges". In practice, this suggestion often has proved difficult to follow because specific challenges have not been forthcoming. In accordance with the basic premise of your lead into your comments, namely, "if it (only) shows what is clearly in article text which itself is in compliance with wp:ver, then it is OK with respect to wp:OR concerns.", it would appear that a 'specific challenge' would take the form such as: "The figure shows x, but x is not part of the accompanying text that it illustrates", or, maybe, like: "The figure does not show x, but x is a key concept used in the text." Such specific challenges provide the illustrator with a clear idea of how the figure should be adjusted to arrive at compliance with the accompanying text. But blanket, vague challenges like Sorry its original research or synthesis... Find a source before you restore it.[1] do not fit the description of a specific challenge. In fact, this particular instruction is contrary to your summary in wrongly suggesting that the issue is not compliance with the accompanying WP:VER text, but compliance with some WP:RS outside source. Brews ohare (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't follow everything that you wrote but I think that it is a good point. What I intended in the summary was trying to find the "middle ground" between the comments reflecting this. At one extreme would be someone just citing policy without expressing any other concerns, and considering that to be sufficient grounds to force removal. At the other extreme would be be that the challenger must express some concerns and then win the ensuing debate in order to get it removed. This was trying to find the middle ground by saying that the challenger must raise some issue (other than just citing general policy) but that once that has occurred, the burden is on the "keep" person to prevail in the debate in order to keep it. But either way, I put it in parenthetically and with a question mark because I didn't intend to present it as being a part of the summary of the discussion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A position that permits an editor to remove a figure with the edit remark "Sorry its original research or synthesis... Find a source before you restore it." is unacceptable to me for two reasons. One — it provides no clue about what needs to be fixed. Two — it suggests that it is policy that a figure illustrating WP text requires support from an outside source, which is contrary to the view that such a figure has only to correctly fit the accompanying text, and it is that text that requires support from an outside source. Apparently I misread your summary, and you do not support my view of WP:OI, which says: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." Obviously an accompanying figure that faithfully illustrates policy-compliant accompanying WP text fits this statement and is exempt from any challenge as WP:OR. Brews ohare (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary was followed by a detailed explanation on the talk page Brews and it was accurate as the diagram did not relate to the text of the article (or its claimed sources for that matter). Try and see the whole picture, not just the bits that seem to support your view of yourself as victim ----Snowded ^TALK 21:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Snowded: The example comment "Sorry its original research or synthesis... Find a source before you restore it." seemed to illustrate well some possible issues. Apparently you authored it, but that is not the point. I am comforted to understand from your comment that there was "detailed explanation on the talk page" indicating that the peremptory tone of this remark was softened with your further Talk-page discussion of the issues for that particular case. Brews ohare (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The other one has bells on it Brews ----Snowded ^TALK 05:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I am confused... are we discussing whether a diagram should or should not have been deleted?... or are we discussing whether an edit summary accompanying the deletion was too blunt? Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar: Let me try to straighten that point out. We are not at all worried about etiquette and diplomacy here, but in edit summaries accompanying figure deletion that (i) are unhelpful and (ii) misstate WP:OI as a justification for incorrect deletions.

The issue of circumstances warranting deletion has come up. For the case of accompanying figures, whose purpose is to illustrate a companion WP text, it seems patently clear to me that WP:OI says that it is the text not the figure that is subject to WP:OR challenges, and if the text passes, and if the figure is an accurate representation of that text, then the figure is immune to challenges of violating WP:OR. That view, which I regard as a no-brainer, is disputed by Snowded, and North8000 takes the view that it is some kind of compromise position between more extreme interpretations, which extremes, IMO, all are clear violations of policy. Brews ohare (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Not what I said Brews, but I've never seen you accurately describe another editors position over multiple articles. A concept map can illustrate the text, but it must not add meaning that is not in the text, or purport to summarise the field when it only represents a small part of the text ----Snowded ^TALK 23:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

OK... first, could we please not use the word "deletion"... "deletion implies that it is gone forever, and that is not the case. The figure was removed from the article (and removal is not necessarily permanent). Now, edit summaries are a courtesy... they are not required. So an edit summary is unhelpful the solution is to go to the talk page and ASK for clarification. And... If you feel an edit summary misstates a policy or guideline, the correct action is to go to the talk page, explain why you think the policy or guideline does not apply, and make the case to return the figure.

Finally, nothing in Wikipedia is EVER immune from challenges or removal. NOTHING is "safe". Consider this... the challenge may well indicate that there is disagreement about whether the figure accurately illustrates the text or not ... you might think it does accurately illustrate the text, but another editor may disagree with your assessment and be just as positive that it does not. That's when you need to bring in other editors and reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Snowded is partially correct: I have never succeed in describing his positions, partly because they are seldom articulated and partly because, when they actually are stated, they change grounds immediately upon response to them. Brews ohare (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm in good company then Brews; every other editor on your many failed RfCs not to mention Arbcom. I can live with that ----Snowded ^TALK 07:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar: Your remarks immediately above are 'motherhood and apple pie' and do not come to grips with the following problem: these marvelous precepts are often not followed. So what can we do about that? The suggestion here was to amplify some aspects of WP:OI so that abuse was less likely. Namely, to say clearly that an accompanying figure is subject to criticisms about its fidelity to the companion WP text, but it is this companion text that must pass policy requirements, not the figure. The accompanying figure is subject to fidelity to the text.

This limitation upon grounds for refusal does not isolate a figure from criticism or removal. It does defend the figure from nonsensical claims that it must agree with a secondary source or it violates WP:OR. Brews ohare (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Implementation for new images versus earlier published images

The above discussion there is an understanding that: If an image (only) shows what is clearly in article text which itself is in compliance with wp:ver, then it is OK with respect to wp:OR concerns.

When it comes to the implementation of this guideline in conflict resolution, there is a difference between dealing with existing earlier published image, and newly created image:

1. The earlier published images is never OR, only the placement in the article can be considered OR (if the topic of the image is not similar to the topic of the article). In conflicts you only have to establish whether of not the topic is the same.
2. New created images can be considered OR, if particular elements of the image don't respond to what is explained in the text. In conflicts the specific contradictions should be expressed, so that the creator of the image can alter the image.

This way, there is an essential difference between the two situations. Adding earlier published images to an article, is like adding a quote. There is no need to bargain about that content. It is just appropriate or not. -- Mdd (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

However, you may have copyright issues. Brews ohare (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the image needs to be properly released or from a PD source. -- Mdd (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

wikt:template:original research

The dictionary definition of template: original research at Wiktionary

FYI "template: original reasearch" on English Wiktionary has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in the discussion. -- 70.24.251.36 (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it OK to claim that 14 is more than 16?

Some sources claim that 14 is the biggest number in some set. There are academic sources proving that the file contains the number 16.5 . Shall I accept that 14 is more than 16.5? Xx236 (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You probably want WP:NORN (the noticeboard; this page is for discussing the policy). When you post there, please provide context with at least a link to a section on a talk page where the issue is discussed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

One's own personal eye witness information

I understand the underlying concept behind the policy.

But I am wondering to what extent eye witnesses can just post information or corrections.

The wording of policies seem to imply that someone has to start a web site, put the sentence on that web page, and then (ooooh) cite that web site, in order to simply say "I was there, it was Thursday, not Friday."

This is usually in reference to cultural events, not rigorously definable things like the principles of biochemistry, or contentious issues like the Irag war.

Every so often I come across something that I know is wrong, from first person observation, but I don't want it to be pulled for "No Original Research", even though wikipedia cites eye witnesses as amongst the best sources.

Thanks for any clarification on this.

Nope... you can not add information based on your own personal observation. The rest of us have know way to verify that you actually were there... and we are not going to take your word for it that the event happened on Thursday, not Friday. (and... even if you start a webpage to say "it happened on Thursday, not Friday"... it would probably not be considered a reliable source.)

However, depending on the circumstances you might be able to convince others to remove inaccurate info based on your personal observation... it's rare, but I have seen inaccurate information removed because someone said "I was there and I know for a fact that this is wrong". In almost every case the challenger stuck to saying that the inaccurate info should be removed... without saying that his/her "accurate" original research be substituted. Effectively: "I do understand that the article can't say it happened on Thursday (that's OR)... but could we at least remove the inaccurate statement that it happened on Friday? I would rather the article gave no day of the week than the wrong day of the week." Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I understand your distinction.

However, from a "philosophy of knowledge" viewpoint, I think Wikipedia is making some distinctions that are just conventional wisdom from our culture - rather than actual scientific distinctions.

For example, suppose that John B. Doe graduates from Harvard Law and gets a job in the White House. He works there for 8 years, and then writes a book "My years in the White House". In the book, he says "... while newspapers reported that Bush gave the order on Friday, in actuality I saw first hand that the order was given on Thursday. " Later, someone adds that information to Wikipedia with a ref to pg 318 in "My years in the White House" by John B. Doe.

Okay, now imagine that John B. Doe doesn't get the White House job at all. He goes through a variety of miscellaneous jobs, and is laid off early in the recession. He has a lot of spare time, so he reads Wikipedia and notices a line "Bon Jovi only played this song live once at the concert in NYC on Friday, August... " and he changes it to "Thursday" because he was there - and he knows it was Thursday, because he had to miss the weekly Thursday poker night at his friend's house.

The first case has more of an "aura" of importance and validity, but scientifically, both are first-hand recollections.

(By the way, where I find the first-hand information would be useful, is in areas where the Wikipedia article(s) are very sketchy and have little or no information at all. Either someone could post some first-hand information, or else no one will ever know about these details - because they are not of enough general interest to warrant a book or even an article. Perhaps what is needed to allow first-hand information whenever there is no information, but allow it to be "trumped" by anyone with information viewed as more reliable.) 76.209.221.203 (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)