[WikiEN-l] Original research

Fri Dec 3 21:40:33 UTC 2004

As a person who is prone to original research, I think you have it about
right. To put together an article using references from published material
is not original research. Advancing ideas that you can find no published
source for is. If you are doing it you generally know it.

Fred

> From: Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:03:57 +0000
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research
> 
> I would think that valid Wikipedia articles can indeed be considered
> "original research" by others outside Wikipedia, as articles should
> arise from the gathering of information from various sources (a
> process called research?) with the result of an article unique to
> Wikipedia.
> 
> On Wikipedia though, the term has been hijacked to some degree to
> include a much narrower category of work - namely those consisting of
> original conclusions, original theories, etc. By and large though,
> such work falls into a category that common sense would dictate
> shouldn't be on Wikipedia, for the reasons outlined by Jimbo.
> 
> I think this is probably the reason for any confusion over the term
> "original research". I could be wrong of course!
> 
> Zoney
> 
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 02:34:03 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
> wrote:
>> The phrase orginated primarily as a practical means to deal with
>> physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the web.
>> 
>> The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to
>> make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is _true_ or
>> not.  It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether
>> someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped
>> to do that.  But what we _can_ do is check whether or not it actually
>> has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers.
>> So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by
>> simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people
>> much better equipped to decide.
>> 
>> The exact same principle will hold true for history, though I suppose
>> the application will in some cases be a bit different and more subtle.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> apw at ap-woolrich.co.uk wrote:
>>> Hi everyone, I have been following the this thread with interest,
>>> but am confused as to to what the term 'original research' means. As
>>> a writer of history I take it to mean searching the literature and
>>> archives and writing a new, properly referenced, article about topic
>>> which may well not have appeared in any other place than
>>> Wikipedia. Certainly there is a great deal in my field which is not
>>> to be found anywhere on the Web, and Wikipedia is an excellent means
>>> of getting it there.
>> 
>> Suppose for example you've come up with a novel historical theory
>> which appears in no peer reviewed journals and which is contradicted
>> by prominent authorities in the field, and you prove your theory
>> through original research into primary sources, archives, etc.
>> 
>> I am thinking of a particular example, and I'll give that to
>> illustrate my point.  Michael Bellesiles published a book by a
>> reputable publisher in 2000 with the surprising thesis that contrary
>> to popular understanding, guns were quite rare in the early years of
>> the United States.  This book generated a firestorm of controversy and
>> it was later determined by an outside panel of investigators hired by
>> his University to investigate fraud charges that he was "guilty of
>> unprofessional and misleading work".
>> 
>> It took a fair amount of time (2 years) for this process to work
>> itself out, and juding the validity of Bellesiles claims involved a
>> lot of scholarly work *of the type that we are poorly equipped to
>> carry out*.
>> 
>> Suppose Bellesiles had attempted to publish his novel historical
>> thesis at wikipedia, rather than in traditional primary sources?  We
>> would quite properly have rejected it as original research, because we
>> are ill-equipped to judge the validity of such things.
>> 
>>> If we are going to have a blanket ban on 'original research' we ought
>>> to be more precise as to what it actually means, perhaps re-wording
>>> the phrase. Any ideas?
>> 
>> I think the phrase is just fine, but I do agree with you that we need
>> to explore more carefully what it means.  In many cases, the
>> distinction between original research and synthesis of published work
>> will require thoughtful editorial judgment.
>> 
>> --Jimbo
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l