Wikipedia talk:No original research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:NOR)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
I disagree with the definition of secondary source.
Wikipedia mostly follows the definition in use by historians, which requires more than simply repeating information from some other source or rearranging information from the author's notes. The earliest definition of a secondary source in this policy was in February 2004 "one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources".
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

This is a dumb policy[edit]

You don’t need to answer me, I know it’s not going to change, but I feel I must add my 2¢. From my perspective this prohibition does more harm than good. For example, I am prevented from citing change.org to show how many petitions a cause has received because that would constitute original research. There was another case in which an author could not say what was in his own book, somebody else had to say it. That’s stupid as well as time-consuming, and makes Wikipedia poorer instead of better. I know there are tons of cases in which original research would be a self-serving disaster. I don’t need examples. But “reliable” published sources are not a panacea, and what constitutes “reliable” is a value judgment. Many still believe (all Haredi Jews and Seventh-day Adventists, among others) that the Bible is a reliable historical source. And how many times have reliable sources been wrong? Many scientific discoveries, recoveries from “fatal” illnesses, and even athletic records, were described as impossible in prior reliable sources. Well, I wanted to say this. deisenbe (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Clearly you wasted your time typing this, but I'll disabuse you of your misguided ideas. Any editor who thinks they need to cite change.org is clearly invested in a narrative, in violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a fun website for you to write what you want people to see. This is an encyclopedia written by dilettantes. None of us are empowered to analyze sources and perform research the way a journalist or academic would. I recommend you try writing for a magazine willing to publish your ideas. Our job on Wikipedia is to collate what reliable sources say. Are the sources sometimes wrong? Yes. Should we allow editors to perform research? Absolutely not. Wikipedia has essentially no content evaluation system and allowing editors to perform research would create the requirement for the aggregate to judge and analyze to ensure accuracy and reliability. Wikipedia is not poorer for eliminating the nonsense for which you advocate. I'm disappointed that an editor with your longevity hasn't already learned what I'm explaining. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on Wikipedia:Interviews[edit]

There is a request for comment on the Wikipedia:Interviews essay:

  1. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be designated as an explanatory supplement?
  2. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the verifiability policy?
  3. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the no original research policy?
  4. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the identifying reliable sources guideline?
  5. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the notability guideline?

If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:Interviews#RfC: Explanatory supplement and links from policies and guidelines. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 18:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This request for comment has been withdrawn. Thank you for your feedback. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2018[edit]

HOSIE DINKINS (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Not done since no actionable request was made. zchrykng (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

When does a news article become a secondary source[edit]

I'd appreciate input on whether articles in the Boston Globe (and similar publications) should be considered ipso facto secondary sources.

Please note that I am not disputing the close or the move in which this issue arose. There were two support !votes and no opposes, so it's a good consensus close, and the move (while premature IMO) does no damage whatsoever in terms of reader experience.

But what concerns me is the claim that the article (and a few others but this was the focus of the discussion) is a quintessential secondary source. [1] [2] The article in question [3] is IMO borderline, but that is not the problem I see here. What concerns me is the assumption that, just because an article appears in a respected newspaper, that makes the article itself a secondary source. It’s ridiculous that you don’t accept the Boston Herald, The Boston Globe, WCVB and US News to be reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. They are the epitome of such. If you’re dismissing them, I’m speechless. A reliable source publishing an article based on a primary source like a press release is the quintessential secondary source. (diff given above)

As I said, the Globe article is IMO borderline, so perhaps it would be clearer looking at https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/simmons-university-2208 which was another source cited in the discussion as a quintessential secondary source, on the same basis. But I don't think there's any doubt that this is a primary source, and if I'm wrong in this then again comments appreciated.

My position is, the policy requires us to look at the articles individually, rather than just assess the place in which they are published. Andrewa (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say that a newspaper article becomes a secondary source when it includes an analysis or summary of primary source material. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
That's the policy as I understand it too. But the problem is, we often don't have access to the primary source material, so how do we tell?
And in the case of the US News article [4] it reads so much like an advert that I can't see how anyone can say that the copy came from a source one step removed from the topic. But they did, and rather emphatically. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The annual US News school rankings would be, to me, a tertiary source. While the work has some subjection determinations on ranking, the information it provides about each school borders on primary (non-transformative), but because its part of the larger ranking system, better to consider it a tertiary source. --Masem (t) 21:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The particular page cited is not actually the rankings, but an overview page describing the institution. It reads in part Outside the classroom, students can join more than 50 clubs or play for the Simmons Sharks varsity sports teams, which mainly compete in the NCAA Division III Great Northeast Athletic Conference. Students can also make friends by visiting the 15 colleges that are within walking distance of the Simmons campus, including Northeastern University, Emmanuel College and the Massachusetts College of Art and Design. Boston can also be an exciting escape from studies, with professional sports, museums and music festivals nearby for students to enjoy. That seems to me to be a primary source. But yes, if we consider the whole website, or even the pages related to this one, there's possibly tertiary source material there. Interesting observation.
But even if we do consider this page a tertiary source, it still wouldn't be terribly relevant to an RM, as I read the policy. Perhaps it should be? Andrewa (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
That blurb reads as brochure filler for the school, certainly. The blurb certainly does not talk to why it is on the list as by the editors at US News (especially when I can find close enough matches elsewhere). Random spotchecks suggest all of the blurbs are provided by the school to US News. So for a specific page, should be treated as a primary source. --Masem (t) 01:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Thanks for the detailed research. Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
"Secondary" is structural and unrelated to how established or respected the source is. The person you quoted more or less conflated 3 attributes in one sentence....secondary, wp:reliable and reliability. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Well put.
And so far we seem agreed that however well respected a source may be, it may still contain articles that fail wp:primary. Thank you!
But specifically, I've said I think the Us News article [5] is clearly primary, and the Boston Globe article [6] borderline in that we can't really tell. I thought of asking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but it's not an RS issue at all IMO, despite vigorous attempts to make it one. Andrewa (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it's important to be aware of the context in which this issue was raised and the quote above was made, by yours truly. This was not an issue of using sources for article content. It was about looking at usage in sources to determine the most common name for a title decision. Some years ago the guideline was modified to refer to using reliable sources for determining the most common name. The idea is that we shouldn't be going with usage on blogs, Twitter and Facebook (or MySpace back then). So we look at usage in "secondary sources". For common-name-determining purposes even brochure-like language in respected publications qualifies, I think, as legitimate source to consider in how something is named. --В²C 22:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Provide "Copy and Paste" Hotlink Text of This (and Other) Wikipedia Policies[edit]

This and other Wikipedia Articles would be improved if it provided the New Editor with a copyable/pastable text that can be copied and pasted directly from here to elsewhere on Wikipedia. As a New Editor, I have read and get a general "feel" for "OR" (and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines), but when I want to reference it in Discussions, the big hurdle is taking the hot-link in the upper right corner and putting it into a Discussion. I've been doing this for a couple of weeks or so, and still haven't decoded the HTML/mark-up formula behind the hotlinks. I know it involves hard double brackets "[[", and the "WP:" preface, but putting them together so that the pasted text actually "hits" (or connects) to a Wikipedia "policy" Article (like this one) is the hurdle. Note I'm not asking "me specific" help learning this; I'm stating that making this text available to New Editors would improve the quality of this, and other Articles, by accelerating the learning curve of New Editors.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Help:Link may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Islamophobia bar chart feedback requested[edit]

Your feedback regarding a possible SYNTH issue in a bar chart in the article Islamophobia is requested; please see Talk:Islamophobia#Bar chart. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

"Instrumentalism" as original research.[edit]

Has the author violated NOR protocol?

In 2014, I replaced the article “Instrumentalism” claiming that it ignored significant events determining the modern meaning of the school. Starting in October 2018, my article was replaced, essentially, by the article I had replaced. I was charged with violating WP protocols in this (and other) articles, including NOR. I welcome the opportunity to show why these charges are mistaken. All the elements of my case appear in the “Instrumentalism” lede, which now replaces my article, restoring the status quo ante 2014.

The present lede defines instrumentalism as an “interpretation” or “theory” that “scientific theory is merely a tool” of prediction that says nothing about unobservable reality. It claims this proposition was introduced by Duhem in 1906, and is the prevailing theory-of-theory in physics today. It then states that instrumentalism is a form of anti-realism—the “demise” of which is claimed in the historical discussion that follows. Thus INSTRUMENTALISM IS BOTH ALIVE AND DEAD—a paradox stated as a fact. This characterization of instrumentalism in the original and present article is inaccurate, which explains my decision to replace. See details at “Instrumentalism” talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBR-qed (talkcontribs) 16:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)