User talk:98.203.170.58
February 2023
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Exact trigonometric values, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Request for clarification
[edit]This last edit is just a high school level math topic (trigonometry and irrational numbers and expressions). Is this really Wikipedia's bar of original research ? This contribution would not be worth my time if people can just search Google and get a copy of this or similar content. We visit Wikipedia for useful content and not just something available everywhere. Original research implies non-verifiable or potentially untrustworthy content. This is mathematics content that's easily verifiable by a high-school kid with a laptop. Please help me understand that this is really indeed meeting Wikipedia's (high?) bar of original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.170.58 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
- Yes, read all about the reasons why original research is not allowed in wp:NOR. There are some exceptions about routine calculations —see wp:CALC— but what you produced here certainly does not qualify. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I might add that when something is, as you say, indeed easily verifiable by a high-school kid with a laptop, it is not necessarily interesting and fit for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia needs wp:Reliable sources in which that content is described, to actually demonstrate the importance and notability of the content. If there would be no policy here against original research, Wikipedia would be flooded with correct but irrelevant content. DVdm (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing the documentation. I read through it. I re-reviewed the content with that perspective. Most line items are obviously routine calculations, which according to Wikipedia policy do not fall into Original research. Some line items (e.g. cos(A+B) formula) may be debatable since they assume knowledge of some standard trigonometry or algebra formulae. But this issue is also covered in Wikipedia policy - Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. Lastly, Wikipedia articles do have small issues at times and just like others, I make small updates to fix them. But, if a moderator had chosen to remove the entire section, perhaps I would not have the time or patience to contribute an entire section. So, if you see small issues in that section, I would recommend leaving it there for our community to make any small improvement updates than deleting it entirely. I'll leave this up to your judgement. Thanks. 98.203.170.58 (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- wp:CALC is about a little trivial piece of calculation, let's say where someone replaces 9+9 with 18. It is not about a complete piece of new mathematics.
- By the way, regarding your earlier statement that we visit Wikipedia for useful content and not just something available everywhere, I can only say that people visit Wikipedia precisely for useful content that is available, if not everywhere, then indeed at least somewhere in preferably more than one reliable and relevant source. That is the purpose of any encyclopedia, and by design, of Wikipedia.
- The way to get your work accepted in Wikipedia is largely as follows: (1) you publish it in some relevant peer-reviewed journal, (2) it gets noticed and referred to in other relevant respected journals and/or proper textbooks, (3) someone, preferably other than yourself, brings it to Wikipedia. If nobody does that, you can open a section in the artcile talk page where you propose to add the content, listing the wp:secondary sources. This can take a few years
. - DVdm (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing the documentation. I read through it. I re-reviewed the content with that perspective. Most line items are obviously routine calculations, which according to Wikipedia policy do not fall into Original research. Some line items (e.g. cos(A+B) formula) may be debatable since they assume knowledge of some standard trigonometry or algebra formulae. But this issue is also covered in Wikipedia policy - Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. Lastly, Wikipedia articles do have small issues at times and just like others, I make small updates to fix them. But, if a moderator had chosen to remove the entire section, perhaps I would not have the time or patience to contribute an entire section. So, if you see small issues in that section, I would recommend leaving it there for our community to make any small improvement updates than deleting it entirely. I'll leave this up to your judgement. Thanks. 98.203.170.58 (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |