test case |
|||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
::Peer reviewed journals in the strict sense are not the primary publication medium in many fields of technology, nor are all claimed peer-reviewed journals actually reviewed by experts in any meaningful sense. This is just a suggestion to keep options flexible. '''[[User:DGG]]''' 08:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC) |
::Peer reviewed journals in the strict sense are not the primary publication medium in many fields of technology, nor are all claimed peer-reviewed journals actually reviewed by experts in any meaningful sense. This is just a suggestion to keep options flexible. '''[[User:DGG]]''' 08:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
In academic fields they are -- but "technology" as in directly applied to money making maybe not. Can you fill us in? [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] <small>([[User:Sdedeo/advice|tips]])</small> 08:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC) |
In academic fields they are -- but "technology" as in directly applied to money making maybe not. Can you fill us in? [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] <small>([[User:Sdedeo/advice|tips]])</small> 08:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Test case== |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept)]]. Comment as you will. --[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] 13:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:49, 1 January 2007
Please transclude test cases for this guideline on the above subpage and add the following comment to the discussion:
:<small>This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline [[Wikipedia:Notability (science)]] ~~~~
Merge proposals
Since it seems like discussion is picking up again I moved my earlier proposal into WP space and merged the talk pages. The archives are linked above now, and I split the shortcuts, WP:SCI links to Wikipedia:Notability (scientific contributions) and WP:SCIENCE links to Wikipedia:Notability (science). Both WT:SCI and WT:SCIENCE link here. I haven't checked WP:FRINGE yet. ~ trialsanderrors 09:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- A consensus seems to be emerging on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories that the Fringe theory proposed guideline should cover more than just science articles — history, pop-culture conspiracy theories and so forth. Based on this consensus, I would advise merging WP:SCI and WP:SCIENCE into WP:FRINGE. Anville 16:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:SCI and WP:SCIENCE don't just cover fringe theories but also possible mainstream theories that haven't received enough attention from the community. (An analogue would be an experimental composer vs. an unsuccessful pop songwriter, both lack the recognition but the thrust of what they attempt to do is very different.) Since the proposals are diverting in scope and they're all getting pretty long anyway I'd say we scrap the merge proposal. ~ trialsanderrors 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was bold and merged WP:SCI and WP:SCIENCE since they seemed disjoint and complementary enough. --ScienceApologist 14:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:SCI and WP:SCIENCE don't just cover fringe theories but also possible mainstream theories that haven't received enough attention from the community. (An analogue would be an experimental composer vs. an unsuccessful pop songwriter, both lack the recognition but the thrust of what they attempt to do is very different.) Since the proposals are diverting in scope and they're all getting pretty long anyway I'd say we scrap the merge proposal. ~ trialsanderrors 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Quotation
The Jimbo quotation adorning the lead of WP:SCI is not actually a quotation from Jimbo, but rather a paraphrase. Anville 17:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oops, that was copied and pasted from WP:NPOV. Looks like it's been changed there, so I took it out. ~ trialsanderrors 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- How about including the actual quote from Jimbo, from his post from September 2003 on the mailing list? --Iantresman 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is a proposed guideline, so for now it can be edited (and reverted) by everybody. ~ trialsanderrors 00:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- How about including the actual quote from Jimbo, from his post from September 2003 on the mailing list? --Iantresman 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Post merger
I think there are a couple of conflicting arguements in the two proposals, but merging might be a good starting point to cut the propossal down to size and avoid TLDR syndrome. First point: The sections on "items", "hypotheses" and "theories" all seem to cover the same ground and can be merged. There's a bit of a conflict between the more inclusive "items" list and the more exclusive "theories" list. I don't have strong preferences on how inclusive or exclusive the proposal should be, but I care strongly about making the criteria tangible, so that "meets" or "fails" verdicts can be reached by established research protocols. I don't think items list is anywhere near that yet. ~ trialsanderrors 01:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Two points
I propose that the following points be removed from the items section:
- 2. "It is considered a possible explanation by a part of the scientific community independent of its creator." Other points would already cover this. For example, if indeed part of the scientific community accepts this explanation, then it would be included in a number of peer reviewed journals. TSO1D 02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- 3. "It is advocated by at least one researcher who is prominent in the relevant field." I don't believe that the view of one person is sufficient to warrant inclusion. Again the appearance of the theory in peer reviewed journals or its being supported or examined by major institutions would be more important. Besides, how would one establish who is prominent enough? TSO1D 02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, in the theories section I believe that the point: "The creators have received a major scientific award, such as the Nobel Prize or Fields Medal, for it. "Best paper" or "best conference presentation award" are rarely ever considered major." should be removed. If a theory is of a high enough caliber to receive such a prize, then it surely must have already been discussed in important peer reviewed journals. I cannot see how a single article could pass this criteria without also satisfying others. TSO1D 02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I realize that the two sets still need to be merged, but I am only proposing this so that we can narrow the list of criteria to be included in the final guideline. TSO1D 02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I concur with both. The only yardstick for prominence we have right now is notability, and even if the proftest is more restrictive than other bio guidelines, it gives rise to a halo effect: the barest of theories espoused by a barely notable scientist would hva e to be included. ~ trialsanderrors 04:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Possible merger of criteria
In general, an item in the field of science is probably sufficiently notable to merit an article on Wikipedia if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
- There is a non-trivial mention of the item in general or specialized textbooks.
- It is represented by a number of peer-reviewed papers, and is the work of several, not just one researcher. Self-citations and citations in non-peer-reviewed journals should be excluded.
- It is supported or examined by major scientific institutions, such as by funding, sponsoring seminars, or invited presentations.
- It has been previously thought of as correct or plausible, or is otherwise of historical interest.
- It is advocated by prominent persons, or by notable individuals in the political or religious spheres, or is a tenet of a notable religion or political philosophy, or is part of a notable cultural tradition or folklore.
- It is well known due to extensive press coverage, or due to being found within a notable work of fiction.
- It is believed to be true by a significant part of the general population, even if rejected by scientific authorities.
- It is notable because there is strong criticism from the scientific community.
- It has been the primary topic of a conference with notable participants from the same field.
This is a merger of different sets of criteria in the proposal that I think covers most topics and isn't too broad. I combined elements from the "items" and "theories" list and reworded some of the points. I preserved some entirely or just in part and merged with others, but some points I removed entirely as I considered them to be redundant or too broad. I like the hypothesis section, however I don't believe that the full text of that section is necessary. The notability of hypotheses could be judged using the aforementioned criteria, whereas the explanations on POV and Undue Weight are already part of other established policies that apply to all articles on Wikipedia. TSO1D 15:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think keeping the text of the hypotheses section is important because it summarizes ideas from a disparate set of policies, guidelines, and precedents in a very succinct way. In editting science pages, I have seen the "its only a hypothesis" excuse used to justify the inclusion of material that is technically not encyclopedic. --ScienceApologist 15:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, wouldn't other parts of this guideline already fulfill that role? I mean, such an argument could easily be countered by explaining that it doesn't fulfill the criteria set out in the main points of the policy. Again, I believe the section is well-written and relevant, but in my view it doesn't offer a fast tool with which to assess other articles. And I don't believe that the section is that concise, by Wikipedia standards. Perhaps it could at least be summarized to a paragraph. TSO1D 16:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The difference between hypothesis and theory is hard to define, and right now it seems that there is a gaping hole in the criteria. In other words, the criteria that I would consider necessary for any kind of theory or hypothesis now only explicitly apply to "theories". Thus, all of the work being done to refine what counts as notable can be ignored just by claiming "it's just a hypothesis." I am going to be bold in a moment. Sdedeo (tips) 23:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
expansions
I have made some expansions and clarifications to the notability criteria. I don't believe I've changed anything, but I have made explicit what I believe was implicit about the nature of peer review and citations. Sdedeo (tips) 22:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Peer reviewed journals in the strict sense are not the primary publication medium in many fields of technology, nor are all claimed peer-reviewed journals actually reviewed by experts in any meaningful sense. This is just a suggestion to keep options flexible. User:DGG 08:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
In academic fields they are -- but "technology" as in directly applied to money making maybe not. Can you fill us in? Sdedeo (tips) 08:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Test case
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept). Comment as you will. --ScienceApologist 13:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)