Well, as I noted on the list a couple of days ago, policing for original research seems equally difficult, when even long time editors consider original research to be "simple facts" or "simple deductive reasoning." Perhaps the [[Wikipedia:No original research]] page needs to be updated with examples which make that point that if it really is that simple, someone else will have done the work for you already, and all you need to do is quote them. Jay.

No, that's a strawman argument. "Deductive reasoning" becomes original research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions. Now if you were to assert that based on genetics and "simple deductive reasoning" that uncles were more closely related to nephews than aunts were to nieces, that would be original research, and you'd have to find some source which supported it. Jay.

It's not being made into anything different at all; rather, it has been that all along, but people often fail to abide by it. Quoting from [[Wikipedia:No original research]] "A wikipedia entry (including a part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is... it purports to refute another idea." It couldn't be simpler, really, which is why it is astonishing that even some long time editors seem unable to understand and/or accept it. Right. And, at least for Wikipedia, it has been decided that "original reasearch" is not "encyclopedic in nature". And one of the things defined as "original research" is material that "purports to refute another idea." But of course it is there to do just that (among other things). For example, Wikipedia clearly insists (via the NPOV policy) that you may not argue only one position on a subject, but must bring countering views citing various holders of positions, inevitably introducing an adversarial element to articles. And the original research policy insists that one cannot argue one's own views, but rather must present other's views, and that tempered with the caveat that extreme minority views need not be presented at all. Jay.

JAY JG wrote: That's certainly an extremist view. It implies that a crackpot theory is acceptable as long as it has previously been published somewhere else. However, if the public thought that the theory was so ridiculous that they felt it a waste of time to dispute it we would not be allowed to publish a refutation on the grounds that it was original research. You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule. Ec

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:15:57 -0700, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: Just a few thoughts on this: 1. *Who* defines "reputable"? If crackpot is just defined as "not reputable" then that just shifts the point of discretion somewhere else; it doesn't resolve it. 2. "The public" rarely challenges theories. "Pundits", "journalists", "writers", and "academics" challenge theories. The vast majority of "the public" is informationally mute. Which again gets back to the "who?" question. Of course, the "who?" question seems to be the most divisive one here, and I'm not sure it *should* be resolved. I think removing than tension, however satisfying it may feel at first, will destroy the engine which makes this online knowledge project qualitatively better than any of the other attempts (nupedia and everything2 come to mind as extreme approachs to answering the "who?" question in a binding way, and both seem to fail in my opinion for that reason). Okay, now I'm just rambling on... FF

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:33:22 -0500, Sj <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well, the problem is that any sort of approach to this question, even the appeal to "many of us," is going to be doing what the anthropologists call "boundary work." Without boundaries, we have no realiability and we have no standards. With boundaries, we will be constantly accused of censorship, bias, etc. Constantly accused, of course, by the people on the other side of the boundaries, who we will have already regulated to the category of "negligible" or "fringe" by our very erection of the boundary. Trying to come up with a "methodological" approach to the boundary definition ("only peer-reviewed journals with circulations of X") will unfortunately just shift the impetus to the interrogation of those standards once again (anybody can claim they work via peer review, but can it be verified? Even all that without getting into the question of the limits of peer review, i.e. the Sokal or Bogdanov affairs). My take on this: There is no easy resolution, no rule which will work rigorously. The answer is just to accept that putting forth some general standards with some amount of flexibility will hopefully work out for the "best." Problems will be solved in a somewhat ad hoc manner and there will be compromise involved over things which ideally ought not need compromise. Some disputes will inevitably occur and some good contributors will inevitably become too frustrated and will leave. So what we have here is a system which often privileges patience over truth. But in this sense Wikipedia is more of a marketplace than a utopia, and perhaps that's for the better in the long run. Again, I think I have maybe elaborated too much, and perhaps my analytic biases are showing... FF

JAY JG wrote: Deductive reason is the application of logic to the facts as already presented. The uncle/nephew vs. aunt/niece is simply a nonsense comment pulled out of imagination. It has no research attached to it at all, original or otherwise; your theory doesn't even define what you mean by "more closely related. So before you complain about the strawmen of others you should stop using them yourself. That the purpose was to avoid becoming overrun with loose cannon theories. Ec

Ray - Jay is correct in his description of original research. His point is simply that deduction (that is, drawing a conclusion from a set of premises) should not be used by editors to make a point not already made in a credible publication. It should not be used to make cases for certain positions; and in particular, editors should not go on to present their conclusions as though they're established facts, which happens a lot. When you're doing a unit conversion, you're just counting, and if your conversion is correct, you'll find it published elsewhere anyway, so it wouldn't be original. Sarah

Ray Saintonge wrote: When it comes to Wikipedia, that's a pretty good commandment. Original thinking on matters of content is beyond the scope of the encyclopedia---we're here just to summarize the thinking that's already been done. We're also particularly ill-equipped to judge novel thinking. If you make a novel historical argument, citing dozens of sources in the process, you should submit it to a history journal to be peer-reviewed, not to us. -Mark

It's not a proposal, it's an existing policy, and, when applied, it is helping save the encyclopedia from being a repository for crank theories and arguments presented as fact. The notion that it will somehow create an encyclopedia filled with " nothing but dumbed-down pap" is a bald assertion which has no basis in reality. Jay.

Do we really want "brilliant prose"? Is that even possible in an Encyclopedia? What would "brillaint prose" look like in the context of an Encyclopedia; do we have any articles which contain examples? I would have thought that "clear and concise" would have been more of the kind of things we are aiming for as regards prose, though I'm not stating that as an adamant point. Jay.

Charles Matthews wrote: Specifically, [[Wikipedia:Brilliant prose]] was the old name for what is now [[Wikipedia:Featured articles]]. I think "clear and concise" probably constitutes "brilliant prose" for our purposes. I'm a BIG fan of The Economist's incredibly tight writing style, though they happily put in POVs and unsupported evaluations (though that's fine for what they do rather than what we do). I consciously emulate their tightness when writing for Wikipedia. Yep. Indeed. Excellence in writing should not be a focal point for suspicion. - d.

Charles Matthews wrote: That sounds like a reasonable position on their part to be criticizing this kind of prostitution. Ec

JAY JG wrote: I'm sure that a lot of authors of software manuals live with the illusion that their writing is clear and concise. Brilliant prose keeps the reader engaged. When a writing needs to deal with opposing views on a subject coherent narative prose is even more important. If each sentence must immediately be followed by a sentence expressing the alternate POV it will be much less readable than if the pros and cons can be expressed in two separate paragraphs. Awkward prose chases readers away. Ec

Delirium wrote: On Wiktionary if someone were to present such etymological research I would be inclined to say, "Well done!" I would usually not consider it as "original" but as a synthesis of existing sources. The OED is a well-respected source, but it's not the only one that I use. More often than not the difference between the OED and other etymologies is a matter of detail and degree, and not of completely contradictory views. I also regard the secondary sources as published etymologies. As yet, I know of no rule that confines us to a set of select orthodox etymologies. I read the term "published etymology" as any published work that deals in whole or in part with etymology no matter when it was published. Ec

JAY JG wrote: But your reference was at least stated to be based in genetics. The reference to editors is meaningless since we are all editors. There's very little in the way of original research done here in politics; you're confusing original research with original speculation. "Bogged the list down" = "exposed your ideas to attack". The POV that you push does not need a basis in reality. As for 172, it's a question of his bringing balance to some points by removing the half-truths and innuendos promoted by the anti-communist wolf pack Again the reference to Wikipedia editors is menaingless. Are you suggesting yourself as the judge of what is reputable? :-D :-D :-D Ec

Jay JG: Ray Saintonge: I was grateful for the clarification later given by Jay JG. Where I differ, myself, is in not taking "idea" from the policy page to mean any proposition, however concrete or factual, but to have some debatable general or abstract content (e.g. the theory of relativity). Charles