Wikipedia talk:No original research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Editors, please note:

After four months of discussion at Wikipedia:Attribution, editors at Wikipedia talk:Attribution have agreed on a means of merging Wikipedia:Verifiability with Wikipedia:No original research, while also streamlining Wikipedia:Reliable sources into a simpler FAQ.

There are no policy innovations suggested: WP:ATT is intended be a more cohesive version of the core content policies with which the Wikipedia community is already familiar.

Citation This page was cited by Stvilia, B. et al. Information Quality Discussions in Wikipedia. University of Illinois U-C.

The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

Archives

[edit] removing {{historical}} from talk page

It would appear that the policy page has been returned from Historical to active status or at least that there is a movement afoot to do so, so I have taken the liberty of commenting out the historical tag here. If this movement carries on it may be appropriate to unprotect the page as well in accordance with common practice. ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protect

I have protected this page to maintain stability while the WP:ATT situation is being sorted out. Crum375 00:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ATT: Join the discussion at

Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An inquiry on the synthesis policy

The current policy currently states that if A and B are both reliable sources, they still cannot be used together to advance opinion C. Specifically, "In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia."

But I have question on basis of logical reasoning. In philosophy, we call the idea hypothetical syllogism. The argument goes as follows: If Q, then R. If P, then Q. Therefore, if P, then R. This is a deductively valid argument. If P and Q are both true, then R is logically true as well. For example, consider the following argument: All cats are mammals. All mammals are warmblooded. Therefore, all cats are warmblooded. If we provide a reference for the first premise (all cats are mammals) and different reference for the second premise (all mammals are warmblooded), would we be be allowed to use that as justification for writing within an article "all cats are warmblooded"? ~ UBeR 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Answering on Wikipedia talk:Attribution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Whereabouts? ~ UBeR 01:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

here. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ UBeR 02:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That is really the exact thing that the synthesis part of NOR is prohibiting. We want to avoid making these new connections (or, to put it another way, if someone wants to publish such connections, this is the wrong place to do so). Jkelly 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I quarrel with that idea, however, if this what the policy is actually stating. If we, Wikipedia, treat both the former premises as fact, quite logically the conclusion based on the previous premises is true. The mathematical equivalence could be as follows:

1 + 1 = 2

2 + 1 = 3

Therefore, (1 + 1) + 1 = 3

Now assume we have independent references that confirm 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 1 = 3, but we do not have a source saying 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. CLEARLY, based on the previous two equations Wikipedia treats as truths, the third equation can only be true. ~ UBeR 01:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that one would encounter little resistance to that in an article on math or the sciences, although I would still hesitate to draw our own conclusions. If we've come up with a conclusion no one else has, it may not be as obvious as it appears. In an article on the humanities it works especially poorly. For instance, if we have a source saying "Jkelly says that all basket weaving is a deeply creative process" [ref] and "Jkelly says that creativity in basket weaving should be rewarded with cash prizes" [ref], we cannot then say "Jkelly thinks that all basket weaving should be rewarded with cash prizes" [ref][ref]. Jkelly 01:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a lousy rule then, I must confess. It's the simple idea of substitution. "J says A is B. J says B warrants C. Thus, J says A warrants C." Saying otherwise seems to be self-contradictory. Admittedly, the current dispute I am is a little more complex. Arghhh. ~ UBeR 02:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOTE: There is a proposal to merge this page into WP:ATT.

ResolvedMerge tag installed.

There should be a prominent merge tag posted on this page, directing people to the discussion, which is supposed to be trying to attract as many people as possible. This is the very problem that led to the current dispute: that there had been no merge tag on this and similar pages while discussions about possibly merging were going on. Would someone please correct this and put up the merge tags? --Coppertwig 00:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The project page needs {{mergeto|Attribution}} (see Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll - merge has been proposed). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}. There is an enormous amount of discussion going on about these pages. There are many users with sysop rights who are actively involved, and I trust them to add appropriate templates when/if they are appropriate. There is no need to request assistance from uninvolved administrators using the editprotected tag.CMummert · talk 20:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you read all of the WP:AN discussion you seem to be responding to. That users with sysop rights have been partisan, obstructionist and wheelwarring (i.e. not being trustable to add the appropriate templates) was the entire issue. I don't see anyone here suggesting that the text of this page should be modified, simply the proper merge tag installed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the following template is added along with {{protected2}}:

A discussion regarding merging Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources into a single page at Wikipedia:Attribution is in progress. Pending long-term resolution of this situation, the page has been protected from editing. This is not an endorsement of the current version.

You may have seen something similar on your watchlists. Would anyone object if I added this or something similar? -- zzuuzz^(talk) 18:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New combined merge/prot/community discussion header tag

ResolvedMerge tag installed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability/Header. I was asked by an admin from WP:RFPP to come up with a combination of the merge header from WP:RS and the protection header from WP:ATT, to be used on both WP:V and WP:RS, and propose it here. My take at this is located at the link above (it has code in it so it can be used on both pages). By belief is that this version will satisfy everyone. It has the text (with twiddles that make it apply to these pages instead of ATT) from ATT's tag, including the protection discussion, with the merge tag formatting of the one at RS. So, it would replace the {{Protected}} on this page, and obviate the need to continue editprotecting about the need for a merge tag. I think it also absorbs all the ideas of the template in the topic above, too. Any objections? It looks like this:

Wikipedia:Attribution was created to serve as a combination of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It was believed that consensus for such a merger was reached, but that has been called into question. For the time being, Wikipedia:Attribution remains the canonical policy page, but Wikipedia:No original research retains its applicability. Pending long-term resolution of this dispute (presently under discussion), this page has been protected from editing. This is not an endorsement of the current version.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming insane.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate, substantively I mean? And did you have any sort of understandable reason for attacking someone who is trying to get consensus on a simple notification-header issue, at the request of others? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page rename?

This should absolutely be renamed to Wikipedia:No original thought because of the problem in wikilawyering where ANY research, including organizing information logically or seeking out citations, is seen as "original research". Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The title you suggest is no better at avoiding misuse. "You're not allowed to think about if that is a reliable source!" -Amarkov moo! 01:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo Wales's requested poll nearly done - please see

Jimbo Wales requested a poll to gauge community thoughts on the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. A poll for this is being crafted, and is somewhat close to done. Concensus for the past 24 hours (with the occasional dissenting voice of course) that the thing is close to done. Only the main question is still heavily debated. A pre-poll straw poll is here:

Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Q1_Straw_poll_duration

To sort that out. Accepted group concensus seems to be to pre-poll to 4/1/07 22:00 and then launch a site-wide poll (again, as implied/requested by Jimbo) at 4/2/07 00:00. Please help hash out the wording for that last quesion. - Denny 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Slow down, slow down! I thought you'd give me time to talk with people? --Kim Bruning 13:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I wouldn't mind, but I don't know if there is overall concensus. Jimbo was online when I posted to his talk page last night; he almost certainly saw my message. - Denny 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Resolved'Speedy keep' result.

Per comments on the Talk page here, and in other locales, it appears groups of editors are specifically against Jimbo's specifically requested public poll to gauge thoughts/support on the idea of the ATT merger. As it has been stated that the Poll is "dead" per users such as User:WAS 4.250, I am nominating this. If there is wide spread support to run this poll, this page should be kept. The MfD is here:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Thank you. - Denny 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The result of the MfD was a Speedy Keep - Let's get back to work on the Poll folks... New voices are needed to break the current deadlock over language. Please help out. Blueboar 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refrencing a T.V

Is referencing a T.V show original research?--Lucy-marie 10:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making your own sources/citations

What are the views of making a page/site or having someone else make a site just to use said site to have a source for wikipedia? I want to point out the fact that if this happened i am speaking as if the information posted in said sight really was true and legitimate. Would That be original research >:]? Just trying to point out the fact that you can't go and mark out someones information they post on here just because they don't have a source, yes sources are very nice and you should have one none the less. --NekoD 11:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The questions are :

• If you or a person you know has a paper/book published at a JOurnal and you cite him..would it be 'Original research'

• If someone in 'Science' publish he/seh has discovered martians in Saturn..is he/she serious to be included the resarch into Wikipedia even though is supported (his/her job by a journal like Science or Physical Review )

• Arxiv.org or similar..count as a verifiable or reliable sources?

• If someone cites a source of a not-widely-known journal at the web or of a small country (let's say someone publishes a math result in the LItuanian journal of math) could it be considered as original research

• FOr me a 'peer-reviewed' just no means verifiable/exact since at last editor publishes whatever he wants, i could be the son of the editor of Physical review and have my papers published for example, of course it doesn't mean i'm a hoaxer of that they're wrong.

[edit] ?

I get the idea of no original research because the information must be verifiable. However, how can any "new" research be done without it being (somewhat) original? Think about it.--Sportman2 15:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question! When people on wikipedia say "No original research" they don't quite mean what it seems. The idea is that you (as a Wikipedian) shouldn't post your own conclusions, ideas or theories on Wikipedia. Here's how it does beyond verifiability: you shouldn't put sources together in a way that advances a position that is no longer attributable to the original sources. Some editors prefer the term "No personal research" and that's much better, because you can indeed rephrase the material and draw from a variety of sources to give a "new" presentation, as long as the sources are fairly represented, and are not used to advance a position that can't be explicitly and directly attributed to the given sources. I hope this makes more sense. --Merzul 01:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)