Wikipedia talk:No original research/Primary v. secondary sources discussion/Archive 5

Parallel pitfalls

I was invited to opine about the recent minor language change to this guideline. After reading the above detailed discussion thread, and looking at the various versions, my general thought is that the prior version had some unclarity that is generally improved by Slrubenstein's edits. I'm not sure the latest version is perfect, but it moves in the right direction.

Drawing from some recent editing experience I have, I see certain dangers in both "primary" and secondary sources. In one recent edit conflict, an editor took what we can stipulate (for these purposes) to be a reliable source of raw measurement data, and selectively extracted parts of it to create a chart of this data slice. To my mind, this effort is a clear example of original research. The problem is that there is substantial synthetic effort involved in the choices of data extraction: we all know the slogan that Twain attributes to Disraeli about lies, damn lies, and their adjunct. In a general way, it is an easy pitfall to "make too much" of an original source that one believes to support a certain claim (but which other readers of the same source will not take that way).

Let's elaborate this example with a hypothetical. I take the US Census Bureau to be a nice solid, reliable source. They publish both raw data (well, semi-raw: I don't think they'll tell me individual households, but neither do they only release the very highest-level aggregations). If I were to personally look at several census years, and create a chart that projected "By 2040, the US population will be majority non-white", that would be original research. I bring in various assumptions about the past data trends might relate to future ones—they might be reasonable, but they definitely require some synthetic judgement on my part. In this case, a citation to the primary source raw data is very bad in an OR-ish way. On the other hand, if sociologist Jones publishes an article making the same claim, in which she herself bases the conclusion on census data, that's great to cite. Or, for that matter, the Census Bureau's own summaries might contain this same synthetic claim, probably at the end of a different URL than where you find the raw data. Here we get a clear example of secondary sources being much preferred to primary ones.

On the other hand, I have also experienced recently a case where an editor wished to quote a contentious secondary source that alleged a living biography subject to have written a certain thing. In this case, the primary source—the work of the biography subject—was readily available (and failed to support the secondary source's characterization of it). This is especially a big concern where partisan secondary sources themselves wish to advance certain beliefs about primary source topics (most often negative characterizations of the primary source itself). In this sort of example, the primary source is to be greatly preferred... almost precisely because the secondary source is too synthetic. LotLE×talk 18:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Since you are discussing the chart of GDP/capta above, can you explain exactly how it is original research and synthetic? Maddison's estimates have been cited in hundreds or thousands of other studies. The chart shows the whole period covered in his data. If we exclude this chart, how can we then include any other chart in Wikipedia? Ultramarine 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk page, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

I want to clear up exactly what people believed about NOR. Please sign your name under one these statements, if you think it accurately respresents your opinion:

Version 1

• What $O^{O}$ says below — Except the stuff about "Non Predominantly Primary" was not there when I got here:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

1. Jon Awbrey 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC) WICI (Where I Came In).

Version 2

• I believe that the NOR policy (prior to the disputed edits) [1] equally favored the use of primary and secondary sources, other than having a narrow restriction on basing articles exclusively on primary sources.

1. O^O 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Vesrion 3

• I believe that the NOR policy (prior to the disputed edits) [2] gave a general preference to the use of secondary sources over primary sources.

Version 4

• I believe that the NOR policy never was nor should ever be so unsubtle as to give an unconditional preference/no-preference to secondary sources.

1. LotLE×talk 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Remark. If there is anything that WP policies need to quit being, it is subtle. I think they need to be clear. They need to be clear, too, about the things that they have jurisdiction over and the things they just don't give a hoot about. Jon Awbrey 05:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Version 5

• The original, long-standing formulation of the policy is fine and recent attempts to alter are misguided and are premised upon misbegotten notions.

1. FeloniousMonk 03:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
2. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost everybody here agrees that the long-standing policy is quite fine. I would personally be quite happy with reverting the recent changes. - O^O 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll reminder: "A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. Even if a large number of people vote for one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the 'outcome'." ... "If you try to force an issue with a poll, expect severe opposition, people adding a "polls are evil and stupid" option and your poll not being regarded as binding." WP:STRAW FeloniousMonk 03:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Monk, I put the poll here, and I assure you it was not intended as a binding vote. My impression is that many of the parties here were misunderstanding each other, and I hoped that this "poll" would help establish what exactly the different parties believed. Unfortunately, the poll seems to have been taken as a joke, and we are making no progress. - O^O 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: FM, could you please give us a link to which original, long-standing formulation you have in mind. Thanks, Jon Awbrey 05:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the problem Jon. I'm not sure they even know who is on which side here. I am in favor of reverting the recent changes. In fact I've stated it already a number of times. The language about using "primary and secondary sources" has been policy for a long time. Wjhonson 06:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

When You Came In — or — While You Were Sleeping

JA: Moved from my talk page:

The revision you linked to includes this text:
In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.
Could you clarify your vote? - O^O 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I'm not pretending I read that page on my personal Day 1, but I believe I did pretty soon after. On 1st pass, I just searched the page for "predom" and got zip. I have since gone back and read it 3 or 4 times, and discovered many curiosities. Will report back later in the day. Jon Awbrey 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: O^O, On 2nd read, I'm not sure what your question was here. Jon Awbrey 06:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed"

Original research is defined in the beginning of the article. We then define Primary sources and Secondary sources. Then follows the sentence "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed". I find this sentence awkward.

Why does this sentence specify that creating primary sources is not allowed? Are we implying that original research that creates secondary sources is allowed? Or would it be clearer to simply state "Original research is not allowed". - O^O 22:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I called attn to this ambig in SLR's phrasing at the start. After 3 or 4 reads I realized that his 1st edit wasn't nec saying what some were reading. The prob is with the "that" clause, that can be either what they used to call "explicative" (defining) or "ampliative" (adding info) in English. Later, Jon Awbrey 22:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: In the sentence, "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed", one is saying, somewhat in passing, in effect, "Original research is that which creates primary sources and it is not allowed". See? Jon Awbrey 23:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: So far so good. That is the way it always was, though it's for sure after all this that it needs to be written w/o all the castling. But now consider what I think is SLR's 1st edit on this issue:

• Where SLR Came In.

JA: He adds the following line, using the same pattern:

Original research that draws on primary sources is also not allowed.

JA: But here the "that" clause cannot be explicative. He is not, or should not, be allowing the reader to infer: "Original research is that which draws on primary sources, and it is also not allowed". Jon Awbrey 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This phrasing is for people who use a method of OR that produces what appears on first glance to be a suitable primary source. For example, a very common method used on Wikipedia by people pushing their view is the 'Google for the word Foobar, and you will find that the websites brought up say this...', or 'If you check the newspaper archives, Mister X is commonly refered to as Dr X'. Both of these appear to be relying on a primary source. But in actuality they are creating a new primary source based on statistical research. Now, if someone makes original research, and then publishes it, and then someone creates a verifiable secondary source on this, it's no longer just a simple case of Original Research since it's become external to Wikipedia and been independantly reviewed. --Barberio 23:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: The problem that you mention is a problem about deliberate bias or so-called "POV pushing". But the technique of distorted or selective reporting you mention works just as well with secondary and tertiary sources as it does with primary sources. Thus there is no protection against it in discouraging the use of primary sources. The problem of bias is real, even among people of good will, but it has to be tackled on its own field of play. There is no easy victory to be had by deprecating primary sources in the bibliographic sense. Jon Awbrey 05:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

On new arrivals attempting to rewrite long-standing policy

This policy is one of Wikipedia's cornerstone policies. It has stood in largely the same form for years and enjoyed broad and wide support. The fact that some relative new arrivals to the project now object to its' long-standing, traditional form as flawed or unclear does not mean it is so and they should not expect the long-term contributors to the project will necessarily agree with them.

So far, after watching this debate for nearly a week I've seen nothing presented here by those seeking to alter the policy that convinces me (or the other long-term contributors it seems) that there's anything that needs fixing in the policy's original formulation, or that those attempting to change even have a firm grasp of it and its nuances.

There's a reason this debate has broken into two camps whose distinguishing characteristics are the time members of each have spent on the project. I suggest that those seeking to alter this policy go edit more articles and get some more experience under their belts before trying to alter Wikipedia's core policies or expecting those who have been down this path many times already to agree. This debate was utterly fruitless and wasted the time of a lot good contributors. FeloniousMonk 03:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That characterization seems almost wholly false. Among those who think that Slrubenstein's wording clarification is valuable are Slrubenstein himself, SlimVirgin, and myself, having respectively 11241, 32587 and 11042 edits... none of usexactly sounding like "newbies" (my compulusion seems so inadequate now... though at a mere 9585, you better get cracking, FeloniousMonk). The main opposition to the clarification is newcomer Wjhonson with 2726 editsLotLE×talk 03:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

FM wasn't referring to Slrubenstein, LotLE. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct, I was not referring to Slrubenstein, or SlimVirgin. FeloniousMonk 06:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Monk, if you have been watching this debate (without being involved) then perhaps you could summarize for all parties what you think the key points of dissent are - the discussion itself appears to be going in circles. - O^O 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should I bother? I can read, and I've read the archives before they were archives, and what I see here now is one side bent on altering a long-standing policy based on a faulty understanding of what constitutes original research in relation to the use of primary sources and that flies in the face of long-established Wikipedia convention and policy and is immune to all reason and evidence that they just may be wrong. Until concessions are made to reality, as documented in the archives and the original policy, on that issue by some here, there's no point in continuing this discussion. That's why I called it was fruitless and a waste of time. So I'll simply reiterate my point: If you want to make substantive changes to a foundational policy like NOR, you'll be doing yourself and the community a service by first contributing to the project in more suitable and constructive ways and establishing that you have a sound understanding of not just the policies but the foundation issues. Disrupting this policy with incessant objections and flawed suggestions is not the way forward and is disruptive and damaging to the project. FeloniousMonk 06:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Because you seem to feel that someone other than Rubenstein is the one seeking to alter the wording of the policy. When in fact, it is Rubenstein who is seeking it, and others are seeking to stop the alteration of the policy. To in other words, leave the policy in its long-standing form, which Rubenstein seeks to alter. I hope this is now clear FM. Wjhonson 08:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing of my talk page comments

Slimvirgin, do not edit my talk page comments. This is the graph that Lulu and Slrubenstein want to exclude using the revised policy. As such it is relevant:

Both Smith and Marx observed and discussed a revolution in the economic system and emphazied the importance of studying economic development. This graph illustrated this revolution. World GDP/capita changed very little for most of human history before the industrial revolution and the introudction of capitalism. (Note the empty areas mean no data, not very low levels. There are data for the years 1, 1000, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1820, 1900, and 2003.)

Ultramarine 06:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You are a liar. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to the relevant exchange Talk:Capitalism#GDP.2FCapita chart at which it seems to me that Ultramarine is correctly stating that Slrubenstein wants to remove the graph. Wjhonson 15:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine is a liar, and you are foolish for affirming his malicious claim. I never wanted to exclude the graph using the revised policy. Never. That is what Ultramarine stated, and that is a lie. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. At any rate, after re-reading the exchange it appears that you are saying you want to remove it from one article, and that it should be posted to a different article. You will note, as well that after reviewing his argument and making further argument with him on the issue, I actually come to a harsher conclusion then you on the issue. See my new posts to that talk page. Wjhonson 00:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WJhonson, I amd glad to be corrected and to see that you have not acted foolishly in this matter but have taken the time to provide a fair reading of the conflict between Ultramarine and myself. You can understand why I take offense at Ultramarine´s misrepresentation of my position. I appreciate your digging deeper. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for your most cordial response. I will add you to my "people not to hurl wallabys, oxcarts and sundry-pointy-objects-at — list". Wjhonson 16:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"On the Capitalism page you (and I and others) have been confronting a very specific instance of NOR violation. Right now there is a heated set of debates going on at the Wikipedia:No original research page. I believe all people involved are acting in good faith, but I am opposing a few people who accuse me of changing the policy, whereas I think they want a weaker form of the policy. At heart, I think the problem is that these editors lack the kind of experience you have had with Ultramarine, which illustrates the need for a strong NOR policy. I am not asking you to bring our discussion of Ultramarine and GDP over to the talk page for NOR. I just think you have the experience that makes you well-situated to offer constructive and insightful comments."[3]Ultramarine 02:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

R U Xperienced Enuff ?

JA: Despite what you've heard, apparently somebody does care how many edit counts you have. But since FM has raised the issue here, and since I don't think I'm the only one who finds FM's recent conduct and remarks just a little imperious, if not $\downarrow \to$ insulting, maybe we should establish a baseline for Are You Experienced enough to have your thoughts "count" here. Jon Awbrey 07:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk
Total edits 12049 
Main: 4947 
Talk: 3435 
User: 222 
User talk: 1504 
Wikipedia: 1274 
Wikipedia talk: 519 
Image: 31 
Image talk: 5 
Mediawiki: 0 
Mediawiki talk: 0 
Template: 29 
Template talk: 8 
Help: 0 
Help talk: 0 
Category: 47 
Category talk: 27 
Portal: 1 
Portal talk: 0

My eyes glaze over

Do you guys want to bring this to a close? I respect every person here whose name I recognize. As near as I can tell there is a lot of misunderstanding going on; and everyone is seeking the same end result. How many people want to bring this discussion to an end - to conclude it as best as can be done at the moment and so ya'll can all move on? Can people each give one sentence that they would like to add to the current version of the policy? Do you want to try and see what happens? (I'm happy with most the versions I've seen; but mostly because of IAR and in my experience people interpret words in a self-serving manner no matter how you write them.) WAS 4.250 10:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

My eyes have glazed over, too. I think everyone should stop posting on this topic for a few days. I still don't see why the policy needed to be changed, and I have long lost track of who has proposed what for what reason. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The way the wording in that section is currently is satisfactory. It represents a middle-ground between what was there previously, and what was originally proposed as the change. Wjhonson 14:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Administrative Disruption of Good Faith Discussion

JA: Right now, the only disruptive conduct here is that of FeloniousMonk. The rest of us were having a WP:Civil discussion about the issue at hand. FM's insulting stream of references to (Folklore, Times Immemorial, pp. Unknown) would not meet the demands of WP:Verifiability on a page about Homer 1 or Homer 2 and I cannot imagine why FM dreams that any of us should regard them as accountable, civil, rational, or responsible responses in matters of WP:Policy. The fact that no other Admin has intervened to pin FM's ears back a bit is just one more symptom of the serious hypocrisis in WP of late. Since I do not plan to waste any more of my life in WP's Jacob's Ladder of Arbitrariness, I will simply record my observations here and live by the rule of WP:IAR. Jon Awbrey 18:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion wasn't fruitful, but had turned into a series of rants mixed with trolling. FM was right to move it to a subpage so that this page isn't disrupted. There's nothing to stop you from continuing the conversation there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you tone down your voice, Jon Awbrey. "The rest of you" can have a civil discussion here or your personal talk pages. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey is an asset to the Wikipedia community as is everyone else here whose name I recognize. Please respect his right to be himself and to express himself honestly; even if he does not see that he is objecting to FM's right to that very same thing. Chill dudes. WAS 4.250 00:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I obviously do not object to anyone's right to express his or her opinion on the discussion page, which entails the responsibility of supporting his or her position with evidence and reason. What I do object to is the use of strong-arm tactics to usher people out of the room just because they object to the recent adulterations of longstanding policy. That is what I call disruptive conduct. It may succeed in creating a trumped up illusion of consensus, but only because people who have issues with this week's ever-shifty party line eventually give up and leave in disgust. That kind of pseudo-consenus may seem like a short-term convenience to some, but in the long run it will be bad for WP. We are constantly being counseled that there's no hurry about these things, that we ought leave off edit warring and take the time to talk it out. So let us practice what has been preached to us. Jon Awbrey 04:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)