TimVickers (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
:Were these articles that had been edited by [[User:Sadi Carnot]]? [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 16:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
:Were these articles that had been edited by [[User:Sadi Carnot]]? [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 16:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::There is absolutely nothing wrong with having technical discussions on the article ''talk'' page... sometimes you have to go into the realm of OR in discussing a contentious edit. The trick is not to put that OR into the article itself. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 17:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:03, 17 June 2008
Spoken Wikipedia | ||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Tie-in books
Shouldn't e.g. works that build on a particular fiction franchise be regarded as primary sources unless they provide substantial discussion above the level of narration? User:Dorftrottel 13:07, January 30, 2008
"Material serving to advance a position"
I would propose to reword "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" into "Synthesis of published material which advances a position". The reason is that we need to assume good faith. Also, there is no way to show that a synthesis has been done with the purpose to advance a position. We can however say that it advances a position (or not). This is prompted by a recent discussion on the cold fusion article. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- This proposal has not been challenged, so I go ahead and make the change. Please discuss your rationale if you do not like it. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, I would propose to go further and remove any reference to "which advances a position". Any original synthesis is contrary to the policy, whether it advances a position or not. Actually, any statements advance a position, doesn't it ? Pcarbonn (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have now checked archive 32 and 33, which have some discussions on this topic. In particular, it says:
- A<citation> + B<citation> = C ... where C is an editor's conclusion
- Is a clearly form of OR and is not acceptable.
- While
- A<citation> + B<citation> = C<citation> ... where the citations are to different sources
- Might be a form of OR and might not be... it depends on whether C draws it's conclusion directly from A and B.
- Whereas...
- (A + B = C)<citation>
- is clearly not a form of OR and is acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- In the first formula, I don't see why we need to say that C is the editor's conclusion. It should suffice to say that it is an unpublished conclusion. As some people have said, this case is already covered by OR in general, anyway. So WP:SYN is really about formula 2, I would think. There again, I see no need to say "to advance a position". Pcarbonn (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I see a need for "serves to advance" when dealing with people who think it's OK to do A + B and just make C really obvious without actually saying it. In nearly all such cases, the need for sources to be directly related to the topic of an article would nix those sorts of statements where they constitute original research, but it's fairly annoying to deal with in any event. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I understand what you mean, and I can imagine such situations. In some ways, this is covered by "sources not directly related to the subject of the article" in WP:SYN. On the other hand, I could also imagine someone stating A with appropriate sources that are not related to the subject of the article, with the purpose of advancing a position. In other words, the issue you raise does not apply only to new synthesis, but to any single sources as well. So it may be better to write a separate section on this issue, saying that citing any source that is not related to the topic of an article is OR.Pcarbonn (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I see a need for "serves to advance" when dealing with people who think it's OK to do A + B and just make C really obvious without actually saying it. In nearly all such cases, the need for sources to be directly related to the topic of an article would nix those sorts of statements where they constitute original research, but it's fairly annoying to deal with in any event. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The "policy in a nutshell" would then become this:
- (Not changed:) Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
- (New:) Articles many not contain statements from sources that are not directly related to the topic of the article.
- (Modified:) Articles may not contain any original analysis or synthesis of material from any source.
Note that the first bullet point repeats the WP:V policy, and could be dropped, IMHO. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- If editors can not synthesis material, i.e., write an accurate summary of what he sources say, then how can we build an encyclopedia? You are left with only material that is directly attributed to the sources used and/or copyvios. Brimba (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think that you are confusing summarizing and synthesizing. The distinction is clearly made in the article: "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis". Editors are allowed to summarize, i.e. "write an accurate summary of what he sources say", but not to synthesize. So, I don't see the issue you are raising once the meanings of words are made clear, and I maintain my request to change the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- If an edit does not properly represent what the source says, then the "policy in a nutshell" above would be enough to revert it. Can you think of a case where they would not be enough ? We should avoid the need to make a judgement call of whether "it advances a position". Again, let's assume good faith. The wording "Advance a position" supposes the possibility to determine the goal behind the edit, which in practice we cannot. We need a more objective criteria.
- I have seen many disputes where editors were accusing each other of OR and POV. This is the consequence of a criteria based on a judgement call: it encourages editors to accuse each other. We could avoid silly battles and save a lot of time if we had an objective criteria of OR. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- You are using word definitions as opposed to defining how sources are being used. Wikipedia is by and large does not use the best possible English as it is a work developed over time with the input of many people. The wiki format is both a strength and a weakness. You would redefine the policy in terms of words instead of usage. “Articles may not contain any original analysis or synthesis of material from any source.” Is there anything in currently in Wikipedia that I could not remove under this? I think not. Not that I would get very far, I would simply get an edit war going with more fair minded editors.
- If I enter a statement into WP, no mater how mundane, I am taking a position as an editor that what I am entering is a statement of fact. If I say “Monday always follows Sunday” have I not taken a position or put forward an opinion? Where is the bad faith? We define things by how the sources are used, not by labels. Thus “Synthesis of published material which advances a position” and not “Synthesis vs. Summary”. The whole point of your edits seems to be to sidestep this. The focus is on how we use sources, not upon what we call the process. Brimba (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I miss your point. You are saying that any statement entered by an editor, now matter how mundane, is advancing an opinion. That's exactly what I said: the policy as you want it stated would apply to all edits. The policy I propose, if we make the distinction between synthesis and summary, does not have this problem. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- @Pcarbonn: The "advancing a position" is indeed superfluous to the spirit of the statement and of the policy.
- @Brimba: "advancing a position" wasn't conceived as an escape hatch for mundane edits: "Monday always follows Sunday" won't be sourced anyway, and besides there is no "thus" inherent to such a statement, and thats where SYNTH kicks in.
- Think about it this way: Policy wasn't designed to hamper you, its assuming good faith. And policy is only invoked by an editor peering at someone else's edits. Under those circumstances, "advancing a position" is really providing every editor with a back door -- he/she can then simply wikilawyer that SYNTH doesn't apply to him/her because his synthesis (the one OR policy is being invoked for) doesn't advance a position.
- So, however you cut it, its wikilawyering. The spirit of the statement doesn't need the "advancing a position" clause. We don't need it if we do assume good faith, and its blowback if the good faith turns out to have been misplaced. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I probably could have worded that better, sorry. Part of what I am saying is, even in the case of very mundane things, items that would for obvious reasons never be challenged and never require a source, we as editors are still using our own inherit judgment when we edit. You can call that advancing an opinion if you wish or the more common term would be exercising editorial judgment. No one edits in a vacuum, they review what the sources say, and then enter a summery of the information into WP. That summery is the position the editor takes. Hopefully it matches the sources, holds true to NPOV, etc. Often times even when the material violates WP:SYN the conclusions are valid, but its not for us to make that determination or to be a publisher of such material. In either case saying that someone has taken a position is in no way a violation of AGF. For better or worse they have acted as an editor, nothing more and nothing less. When the sources used back the editors conclusion/summery that is good, when they fail to do so that is bad, but pointing that out does not violate AGF. You have to have reasoned discussion and editors have to be free to express an opinion. I don’t know if that helps any, I hope so. Brimba (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your argument says that adding "to advance a position" does not hurt the policy. It does not say why it would have to be there in the first place. So, let's remove it. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- "to advance a position" is policy and has been for a long time. If that is in error as you are insisting, please build a clear consensus per WP:CON “In the case of policy and process pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected than on other pages.” Brimba (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your argument says that adding "to advance a position" does not hurt the policy. It does not say why it would have to be there in the first place. So, let's remove it. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I probably could have worded that better, sorry. Part of what I am saying is, even in the case of very mundane things, items that would for obvious reasons never be challenged and never require a source, we as editors are still using our own inherit judgment when we edit. You can call that advancing an opinion if you wish or the more common term would be exercising editorial judgment. No one edits in a vacuum, they review what the sources say, and then enter a summery of the information into WP. That summery is the position the editor takes. Hopefully it matches the sources, holds true to NPOV, etc. Often times even when the material violates WP:SYN the conclusions are valid, but its not for us to make that determination or to be a publisher of such material. In either case saying that someone has taken a position is in no way a violation of AGF. For better or worse they have acted as an editor, nothing more and nothing less. When the sources used back the editors conclusion/summery that is good, when they fail to do so that is bad, but pointing that out does not violate AGF. You have to have reasoned discussion and editors have to be free to express an opinion. I don’t know if that helps any, I hope so. Brimba (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe it is in error, because it does not assume good faith, and is subjective. Please provide a reason to keep it, so that we can resolve this issue. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that John J. Bulten supports the change (see diff comment), and Fullstop (see his comments in this thread).
- You are concerned that the new phrasing would apply to any edit. Please provide an edit where you think it would erroneously apply, so that we can discuss it. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that a policy statement that does not reflect a consensus should be removed, as you rightly suggest. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to have time tonight to get into details, but I will repost some parts of two past discussions. Please note that there is additional discussion in both cases, and that the issue has been discussed at other times in other places within the achieve, I simply pulled from two where from the title used it was clear that the subject was discussed.
From Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 31# query on "to advance a position":
Are there syntheses, previously unpublished, which do not advance a position and which Wikipedia would therefore publish? In other words, is "to advance a position" a superfluous phrase that could be deleted? Or, is it helpful because any article written is, to some extent, a previously unpublished synthesis, albeit only in the sense that it is a new tertiary source; obviously it must not advance positions or novel ideas. ? --Lquilter (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, not superfluous but crucial. All Wikipedia articles are previously unpublished syntheses. What's not allowed is for a position to be advanced via synthesis. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 33#Synthesis vs. synthesis advancing a position:
I take exception to this [1] edit by Slrubenstein because it no longer makes it clear that it is synthesis advancing an unpublished position that is prohibited, and not all synthesis. Synthesis that serves to summarize and organize published material is acceptable. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. And this is a case of changing long-standing policy without discussion as well. Dhaluza (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thee is no change of policy. And there was considerable discussion concerning revising the nutshell, ove a period of weeks. As for the specifics: the version I restored makes it clear that syntheses need to be backed up by sources, which is what our policy requires. The prior version makes it sound like no synthesis, even one from a reliable secondary source, is permitted. That violates our policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC) :::Your definition of synthesis is too narrow. Straightforward organizing of published material, without introducing new ideas, can be considered synthesis too. But many would read the changed policy as prohibiting this. The reaction might be either to obey the overly broad policy, or more likely, regard it as absurd and ignore the entire policy. --Gerry Ashton (talk)
04:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Your use of synthesis is wrong. From the Wiktionary: Synthesis, Noun: the formation of something complex or coherent by combining simpler things. That is all synthesis means for the purposes of this policy. That is all it will ever mean. The word has a clearly established definition which should not and will not be changed just for Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have it's own newspeak. What your edit did in effect was suggest that the combination of any two sources anywhere within an article, even in separate sections, was prohibited. That is why the qualifier "that serves to advance a position" is added to the end of any mention of synthesis, because every article on Wikipedia is a synthesis. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 09:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Brimba (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Brimba for this detailed answer. It looks to me that the word "synthesis" is the source of the problem, because of its different meaning. One of the meaning given by Merriam Webster is "deductive reasoning". So one option would be to say : "articles may not contain any new deductive reasoning". Would this create a better consensus than any of the current proposals ? Or are there other forms of synthesis than deductive reasoning that we want to prevent ? Please give an example if it is so. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, please clarify: does "to advance a position" apply to any edit, or only to some edits. You seem to be ambivalent on this one. If it applies only to some edits, how does it assume good faith ? If it applies to all, why should we include it in the policy ? Pcarbonn (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Pcarbonn, just wanted to leave a quick note so you did not think I had abandoned the discussion. My short wikibreak may run through tomorrow, with luck though I will have time tonight to add to the discussion. In a very short answer, "to advance a position" would be the editor’s position, not the sources. 99 times out of 100 or more is done in good faith, and much of the time the editor is correct in his/her assumptions. Only if someone was intentionally trying to use WP for propaganda purposes or vandalize etc would it be bad faith. “why should we include it in the policy ?” because is a correct description of what is occurring, and describing it as such makes it easy to identify. I don’t see the conflict with AGF, I see it in the same class as a statement such as “Mark walked through the door”, I do not see it as a statement implying motive to why they are advancing the position, simply that they are doing it. I guess that is what I am missing; I don’t see how it implies motive and therefore I don’t see how it conflicts with AGF. Well, now I have written more then two sentences Anyway I will try to be back in the conversation soon. Brimba (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Brimba. I'll be happy to read you later. I can't believe that synthesis of published material "that serves to advance a position" is not describing the intent of such synthesis, but I'll wait for your explanation of what it really is. (I agree that it does not describe why they want to advance such a position, but every motive has itself another motive, in an (in)finite recursion, hasn't it ?)
- Here is what AGF says: "countermeasures (like reverting or blocking) are performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent". Because "that serve to advance a position" describes an intent, IMHO, one cannot use it as a criteria to apply countermeasures, and thus, it can't be part of this policy. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Finally made it back. I have been trying to think of a concise way of putting this, and have decided to fall back on a sports analogy. Sorry. In sports you often have lines drawn on a fielded that define the size and shape of the area where players can legitimately compete. When players cross those lines they are “out of bounds”. Such lines are clear because they exist in a real three-dimensional world. Existing in the real world means that they can be precisely drawn and colored so that anyone can readily see exactly where they are.
- We unfortunately do not have the benefit of being able to draw lines on solid ground. We have to define what is allowed and what is not, without being as precise as we would like to be. This is because we use words and words have slightly different meanings from one person to the next. Sometime the words are interrupted in completely different ways from one editor to the next which is partially why we have discussion pages. Our rules will never be bullet-proof. The wording "that serve to advance a position "is used as such a line to establish when an “editor is engaged in original research.” It was not reached on a whim, and there was a large amount of discussion on the subject. I am not going to say that it is perfect, but was best that anyone one came up with at the time.
- One of the problems that we have in this discussion is you see motive or intent being described while I do not. Imagine that Wikipedia exist on two separate but identical planes or dimensions. In one an editor combines two sources together to reach a logical conclusion and then enters that conclusion into Wikipedia. In doing so he has not done anything morally or ethically wrong, in fact his conclusion was correct. However, he still combined sources together to advance a position, even though he was correct in his conclusion. He in essence went “out of bounds”. If you enter material into Wikipedia, you as an editor are responsible for making sure that material is directly backed by a source, even if you are correct and have the best of possible intentions or no intentions at all. Now imagine that on the other plane, an editor enters in the exact same conclusion using the exact same wording, only this time he has a source that directly supports his conclusion, meaning in this context it is not the editors own conclusion, but it is instead a conclusion reached by a reliable published source. Therefore it was not used to advance the editors position, because it was a conclusion or position that existed independent of the editor. Neither editor was acting in bad faith, nor was there ever any reason to assume such. One crossed the line as we define it; however, the line that was crossed was not a moral or ethical line, it was simply a technical line that was established to show as best as we could what is or is not acceptable sourcing. Both editors in this example where attempting to improve Wikipedia. That’s probably enough for tonight. Thanks, Brimba (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Brimba. If I follow your example properly, you say that original research was done in the first case, but not in the second. I would agree. The main reason you give is that no source existed to support the conclusion in the first case, while there was one in the second case. So why not give this as the criteria for OR ! NOR would then mean that you cannot insert original deductive reasoning, i.e. deductive reasoning that has not been published a source related to the topic of the article. Wouldn't this wording exactly represent your view ? Why do you see a need to add "that serves to advance a position", which grammatically is a clear description of intent, and can certainly be interpreted as such ? Let's avoid the confusion if we can.
- You say: the current wording is a result of many debates. Was the "Assume good faith" argument presented before? I don't think so, but let me know otherwise. While I agree that policies should be as stable as possible, it is wikipedia's philosophy that any page can always be improved. I see a clear case for doing it here. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't like this page as it stands, but the proposals don't sound very good either. Frankly OR requires some discretion; it's hard to describe exactly. We should certainly be able to put together a fundamentally disparate yet connected set of facts -- this is exactly what building an article is about. Yet some people will try to claim that is OR. Sometimes these sets of facts will incline themselves to a position -- and I don't think there's anything to be ashamed of in that. Let us not pretend that we edit articles out of pure randomness; we are all connected to the articles that we are writing -- we all have something that we want known about them. Anyway, as far as changing this page: if you want to make a major change, you ought to do a formal Request for Comment. Otherwise, I don't think you can make a case for actually having a consensus. ImpIn | (t - c) 09:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It appears that after a long but failed effort to adopt Wikipedia:Attribution the proponents have devised a new and confusing custom tag to legitimize the instructions as a "summary" of other processes. This lacks the consensus to be anything other than Essay status and should be so tagged. While I don't specifically oppose or support ATT, I don't think that we need to confuse the issue with a new process category which is not described at WP:Policy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- IMHO, the WP:ATT effort results from dissatisfaction with the quality of the WP:OR page. I share this dissatisfaction. See my comment in the previous thread. If WP:ATT is rejected, I would propose to improve the WP:OR article, eg. by reusing some material from WP:ATT. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Given that the summary tag has been on that page since at least last June (although not without some opposition)... I think it is hardly a "new" tag, and does have some degree of consensus. It developed out of discusions that several editors had with Jimbo, all the way back during the debate over merging NOR and V. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK... it is time this on-going debate was settled... please opine at WT:Attribution#RfC - Status?, thanks. Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Given that the summary tag has been on that page since at least last June (although not without some opposition)... I think it is hardly a "new" tag, and does have some degree of consensus. It developed out of discusions that several editors had with Jimbo, all the way back during the debate over merging NOR and V. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Various OR questions.
- Some en.WP (possibly other) editors object to untranslated citations and references. When dealing with areas where English scholarship is very limited, this represents major gaps in what may be cited, if we are limited solely to published works in English. I am sure this issue has been raised before, but couldn't see anything on the main page. The question is - should I cite the original text (which would not be OR) or should I translate it - without publication or peer review?
- And does the latter really not consist of OR?
- On a separate issue, especially in Africa and Asia there are oral traditions for which there are no published works. Are these traditions barred from disclosure on Wikipedia, on the basis that they don't meet the OR / WP:V ruleset?
- What about direct personal experience? If I know of an incident in a great amount of detail, and also know that the primary published works have made a mistake regarding that incident, is my mouth sealed?
- Arguing with those on WP who won't rely upon anything other than what is published is now futile. Moreover, published works are far from fact, though the modern focus on 'cite' means that there are many articles that do not refer to those texts as offering views, but as offering facts about the subject. Take the article of the day ( Durian ) for a (random) example. Citations from ISBN 92-9043-318-3 are embedded into the article as declarations of fact. Now, in this case, it may well be that the book is a well-known, peer reviewed reliable source - but there's no evidence for that on WP. Here is a specific example that caused me a headache a while ago - mandala#Tibetan_Vajrayana has many cites and references - but for anyone who has 20+ years of experience with the traditions of the Tibetan Vajrayana (notoriously unpublished and primarily oral lineages) about half the text is pure speculation, based upon a collection of texts which include art books, 'tibetologists' who depend upon their own theories more than anything else, random web pages of pure speculative OR - and even dead links. Yet it LOOKs like it is well referenced.
Therefore, cites are relying upon the authority of published works which themselves are not subject to any check for reliability on WP.
It was in light of these issues that I ceased being an editor for two years. (20040302 (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC))
- Okay, I know see that some of these questions are at least half-answered on WP:V (20040302 (talk))
- Okay, glad you saw them. To confirm what you have already learned, #1 and #2 are questions I myself have run into, in the Fitna film article. There were citations in Dutch which proved rather helpful in resolving a heated debate. Wikipedia is graced with having some fairly smart people in it. Many of them speak more than one language. We are allowed to interpret for the basic reason that any misinterpretations are going to get called out as such pretty darn quick. Granted, if you speak Tuvan or some such esoteric language, a misinterpretation might go unnoticed for a while, but with as many people reading Wikipedia as there are, smeone's eventually going to notice. Translations sort themselves out much like plot summaries to films and such, through an agreed-upon consensus that it is accurate.
- You probably also know that - even if you are famous - you cannot really cite yourself (actually, that is not precisely true, but there are special rules in place for that sort of thing). Sources are Wikipedia's way of staying above the fray and remaining true to one of the Five Pillars - neutrality.
- In the case of the oral history unpublished in written works, I think you've got yourself a fine idea for a book. Now go find a publisher and make a lot of money by writing such a book. Don't forget your new friend Arcayne when it comes time to cash that first advance check. Seriously, though, I understand the lamentable situation this represents, but until someone creates references (be they books or documentary films or television programs - such as has been done about the likely extinction of the aforementioned Tuvan language), Wikipedia's hands are relatively tied.
- Lastly, welcome back to the Project. I urge you to use that great big head of experience you have to help remove all of those dead links you find in articles that interest you (as well as any OR that happens to have been tied to them). Cite the statements which you think require citation, and recognize that your knowledge cannot be added to that article as a counterweight to incorrect info. If its wrong, some expert in the field, somewhere, has likely said so. Lies are very hard things to preserve in the internet age.
- Again, welcome back, 2040302! - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
What to do about serious editors with legitimate OR.
I suggest an interwiki link to Wikiversity:Research or Wikiversity:Original research; the policy there is still a work in progress. Bwrs (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify, are you suggesting to add interwikilinks into the policy? While this may be a good idea to channel the energy of OR from wikipedia to somewhere else, is it OK for wikipedia policy to promote other websites? If it was not your meaning, please explain. Mukadderat (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussing Primary/Secondary/Tertiary sources
It seems to me that the PSTS deserves to be fleshed out and perhaps changed. A review of the literature on a broad topic will list and briefly describe the findings of certain studies. In some cases, after lengthy studies, a review of a specialized topic will be made -- but often not, even when the topic is important. It seems that for interpreting a study itself, it is often best to go to the discussion section of primary sources themselves. Subsequent papers on this topic will review prior literature, and often write in clear language. Thus, for specialized research, primary sources by specialists are preferable to secondary "systematic reviews" of the literature in some cases. I will probably expand this into a RfC. ImpIn | (t - c) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- How is an encyclopedia editor supposed to place studies in context? If there is no review on a specialised topic available, perhaps it is not suitable for discussion in a general encyclopedia. Primary sources can be cited, but only if they are sufficiently placed in context by additional material. Oh, and the "discussion" section of primary sources is not necessarily an unbiased account; these sections have a habit of emphasising particular points from the study and finding parallels in the literature while often ignoring conflicting reports. Systematic reviews don't suffer from this problem. JFW | T@lk 23:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Wiki's OR policy has disturbing side effects
Since about a month ago, I have been editing the articles on thermal and statistical physics on wikipedia. I had noticed before that some articles contained false or misleading information but I never had taken a close look at all the articles. A month ago, I found out that the problem was not limited to just one or two articles but that a large fraction of all the articles contained serious mistakes. These mistakes have existed for quite a few years, so the contents of these flawed wiki articles have spread all over the internet.
I have corrected most of the errors by rewriting these articles since then. But the question remains: How could this have happened? I think that the wiki policy regarding OR is a major factor here, as I explained here.
What happens is that when people who are not experts (in the sense that they don't deal with the fundamentals of this subject on a regular basis, but who may have studied this subject and may know quite a lot about the subject even use it regularly) write about a technical subject like this, they can very easily make errors that they can only spot by sitting down with paper and pencil and deriving the formulas from first principles. Many editors do not have access to the cited textbooks and even if they had a copy, they would not read it in detail and be able to see the error.
The way around this problem is to discuss the fundamentals of the topic on the talk page. This is similar to what students, Professors etc. at university do all the time. Even when the subject is something very elementary, you cannot settle a discussion by saying that Book X says Y, so Y is the answer. If you know why Y is the answer and can explain that, you wouldn't need the book. So, if your best argument is like that, then you haven't understood it.
Now the OR policy doesn't exactly encourage technical discussions on the talk page. I have indeed seen that there was hardly any technical discussion going on on the talk pages of the flawed articles on thermal physics.
Not so long ago, such technical discussions prevented Ed Gerck from editing nonsense into the special relativity article. Of course, we could simply have reverted Ed without discussion. But then the reason why we could have done that is because we are experts in the first place. But then experts tend not to shy away from technical discussions. If the regular editors had less expertise, then Ed could have convinced them, pointing to a source here and there and some flawed reasoning. The regulars would have been none the wiser except if they decided to do some computations for themselves to see if Ed was saying is really true.
If Wiki policies were to encourage such technical discussions instead of emphasizing the need to provide a source to back up your point, that would actually lead to editors seeking help from other more knowledgeable experts. Of course, OR should not be allowed in the article itself and sources must be provided there. But they can be quite worthless if the editors are not able or willing to discuss the subject at the fundamental level. Count Iblis (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Were these articles that had been edited by User:Sadi Carnot? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)