User talk:Slaven0
A note on primary journal articles
[edit]I've been following the conversation over at CRISPR about you wanting to use primary journal articles. This is a little more general of a conversation, so I'm posting this here rather than on the article talk page to gauge how familiar you are with the scientific literature.
The vibe I'm getting is that you're not aware just how much scrutiny we as scientists give to primary literature when reading it. In undergrad, I might teach students to use peer-reviewed sources because we just want to get them away from Google, etc. However, once someone becomes a researcher, gets into grad school, they are taught from day one to be skeptical of primary research articles, especially in higher impact journals like Nature, Science, etc. because it actually occurs very often that someone has an incorrect experiment design, stretches conclusions a bit too far beyond their data, etc. What really happens in peer-review when reviews accept a paper is not to say that everything in the paper can be taken at face value (though they do try to make it as rigorous as they can), but rather that it's acceptable enough for wider attention from the scientific community. The community's "job" is to determine if the study and findings are really valid, and that approval is reflected by others citing the work (especially literature reviews) and others replicating the work as part of larger projects.
Beyond those reasons listed above for being skeptical, primary sources by nature call on readers to assess the experimental design and conclusions. Because of WP:OR and none of us as anonymous editors being considered experts able to assess such studies, we aren't in a position to use primary sources, so we rely on other scientists to do that for us in secondary sources. Is this making sense regardless of the CRISPR content you've been discussing? Hopefully if you're up to speed with that background, some of the comments there will start making a lot more sense. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, as seen from the quote I mentioned at Talk:CRISPR("The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources") WP does actually alow use of "reliable published source" as reference, and the term "original research" does not cover original scientific article published by reliable journal, in fact, it seems to me that review article is actually "analysis or synthesis" and thus not to be used. That said, I do (hope that I) understand your point, but my point there is not that the original research paper should be accepted at face value but that having it found cited in a review does not make it more reliable. Especially if the review is published in a publication of lesser importance where peer-review does not have to be of lesser quality but usually is and regardless of it's quality will be focused more on reviewing the review article itself than it's references. Even if this is not true, by claiming that a review paper is giving more reliability to research paper you are claiming that one or a group of scientists writing the review are doing better job than group of scientists that did the peer review for top scientific journal and already checked experimental design and conclusions. Research article can be deemed immaculate by both the peer review and by other scientists scrutinising it but the only way to confirm that it is valid is by independently replicating it. I am not saying that peer review cannot make a mistake, but authors of review article can make it also. Question is - who do you trust more? Top scientific journal which gets crucified when mistakes like that happen or author whose review paper will be used as somebodies secondary general information source? Credibility of research article in scientific community can be better measured by number of citations. I cannot agree that providing a second hand information resource as a reference is superior to original research paper already checked by experts for its quality.(sorry for bad English) Slaven0 (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- One more thing that I'd like to point out in favour of peer review is that their time and attention is directed solely on the paper in question, while writers of literature review are more focused on subject in question with many different papers to scrutinise and include or dismiss mainly on the basis of their relation to the subject of the paper.Slaven0 (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- The key point about OR is that we as editors are not considered experts. To claim anything about a primary source, you need to be an expert. Even to claim something stated directly in the paper requires the expertise to verify the experimental design was correct, etc. WP:PSTS states, "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." You need specialist knowledge by definition if you are properly reading a primary source. At Wikipedia though, we are an encyclopedia, not a journal or an essay. It is grounded in our policy that we rely on secondary sources that summarize subjects for us to avoid the original research and synthesizing of primary sources. That's exactly why we pull from literature reviews because they are summarizing the subject as an expert. If something was wrong with the review, we let other sources comment on that. Literature reviews summarize the literature and establish WP:WEIGHT for certain ideas in that particular field by citing and discussing them if they have merit, while minority or fringe viewpoints are left uncited and we know that research and the ideas they further are not worth including here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, I used a primary source to make a descriptive claim accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. Slaven0 (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- "educated person without specialist knowledge" It seems you missed that piece and the explanation I gave above. The intended audience of primary sources is other scientists with specialized knowledge either in their field, or more general knowledge about experimental design, etc. (still specialized in terms of Wikipedia). Non-scientists are not expected to be able to engage in the kind peer-review expected of scientists reading the paper after publication. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Literature review is part of every peer-reviewed journal article or it can be a standalone review article and it's primary audience are experts so you cannot claim there is any difference in the level of understanding needed to be able to use it as a reference. On the other hand, there is a difference in quality and reliability between peer-reviewed journal article and a review article, as I mentioned several times already. In the linked examples you can see that primary source already includes summary and introduction which have been scrutinised by top experts in order to be published, while review article authors had to scrutinise more than 100 primary sources in order to write the review. What you are claiming(or WP rules) is that somebody who had hundreds of papers to go trough somehow did a better job than somebody who concentrated on single paper. Slaven0 (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sigh, it looks like you just have a fundamental misunderstanding about how some aspects of the scientific literature works, and that's frustrating you here at Wikipedia. I suggest rereading what I wrote at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- "To claim anything about a primary source, you need to be an expert." positive peer-review is already a claim by experts that experiment design, data analysis or conclusions are viable as far as they can conclude without actually performing the research themselves. Being included in review article does not make it any more or less viable. Review articles are second hand information and are reliable as much as second hand informations can be. I am a mushroom grower and often run into claims in review articles that have been taken from original research papers which after closer analysis of their experimental design can be partially or totally discarded. So review paper ends up being synthesis of research articles issued in wide quality range of journals by wide quality range of researchers taken at face value and included in review on the basis of them being related to the subject of review not on the basis of their quality. And then you have the same conclusion and same paper being cited everywhere because people are simply too lazy to read the original article. If you're not an expert you might as well trust the peer-review and use info provided in original research abstract and article itself as reference on the basis of impact factor of the journal that published the article and number of cites it has. If that research paper is ever discredited it will be easier to locate other WP articles using it than it would be if secondary source was used as reference. Slaven0 (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sigh, it looks like you just have a fundamental misunderstanding about how some aspects of the scientific literature works, and that's frustrating you here at Wikipedia. I suggest rereading what I wrote at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Literature review is part of every peer-reviewed journal article or it can be a standalone review article and it's primary audience are experts so you cannot claim there is any difference in the level of understanding needed to be able to use it as a reference. On the other hand, there is a difference in quality and reliability between peer-reviewed journal article and a review article, as I mentioned several times already. In the linked examples you can see that primary source already includes summary and introduction which have been scrutinised by top experts in order to be published, while review article authors had to scrutinise more than 100 primary sources in order to write the review. What you are claiming(or WP rules) is that somebody who had hundreds of papers to go trough somehow did a better job than somebody who concentrated on single paper. Slaven0 (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- "educated person without specialist knowledge" It seems you missed that piece and the explanation I gave above. The intended audience of primary sources is other scientists with specialized knowledge either in their field, or more general knowledge about experimental design, etc. (still specialized in terms of Wikipedia). Non-scientists are not expected to be able to engage in the kind peer-review expected of scientists reading the paper after publication. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, I used a primary source to make a descriptive claim accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. Slaven0 (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- The key point about OR is that we as editors are not considered experts. To claim anything about a primary source, you need to be an expert. Even to claim something stated directly in the paper requires the expertise to verify the experimental design was correct, etc. WP:PSTS states, "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." You need specialist knowledge by definition if you are properly reading a primary source. At Wikipedia though, we are an encyclopedia, not a journal or an essay. It is grounded in our policy that we rely on secondary sources that summarize subjects for us to avoid the original research and synthesizing of primary sources. That's exactly why we pull from literature reviews because they are summarizing the subject as an expert. If something was wrong with the review, we let other sources comment on that. Literature reviews summarize the literature and establish WP:WEIGHT for certain ideas in that particular field by citing and discussing them if they have merit, while minority or fringe viewpoints are left uncited and we know that research and the ideas they further are not worth including here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Nikola Tesla
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Removing one source (supposedly biased because of its authors nationality) and replacing it with another which suffers from the apparent same problem is not an improvement, and looks like borderline motivated reasoning. Take a look at WP:BESTSOURCES. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Re. your edit on my talk: Military Frontier is unambiguous and links to the proper article; "Croatia" is already mentioned in the same sentence (and "modern-day Croatia" is already mentioned a few times in the article); and of the sources you added, one is "www.gimnazija-karlovac.hr" (clearly a croatian website) and the other is by a Croatian author (quick 15 second google search will show this), and yet you were somehow using these to supplant a source from the Nikola Tesla museum because of the author's nationality? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- As I wrote on your talk page there are several military frontiers, Military Frontier and Croatian Military Frontier is not the same article, did you actually check this? Have you seen the map? No you didn't because you couldn't have in one second it took you to revert my changes. Did you check the references I put there? No you didn't because you couldn't have in one second it took you to revert my changes. "www.gimnazija-karlovac.hr" reference is the web page of the actual high school Tesla attended, and is from article about his high school linked few lines above my edit. How is it acceptable in that article but is not acceptable by you in Tesla article that links to that article? Did you check it? Did you translate it and check historical reference that I also included in my explanation of changes? Do you know what Bach absolutism was, when it was abolished and what rights did abolishment bring to Croatian part of empire? Did you check it? You just got stuck on passing reference that Serbian authors should be double checked when writing about Croatia. You didn't check my actual explanation or read the reference already used in other article.--Slaven0 (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- The reference from the high school website is acceptable in the article about the high school (so long it isn't for anything controversial) since it is talking about itself. In the article about Tesla, and especially for a claim contested on the usual Balkan religio-nationalistic lines, it doesn't look ok. As for "Bach absolutism"; the only Bach I know is far more pleasant; but that aside, looking at the one I assume you're talking about, Baron Alexander von Bach, any link between "Roman Catholic Church control over education and family life" and "which language was in use at schools in the 1870s" is non-obvious, and wouldn't go in an article without a reliable source making the link explicit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry but that web page about history of Karlovac Gymnasium doesn't fit into the category of talking about itself since it clearly doesn't fit the definition of being self published as it clerly isn't a Personal web page but an official web page of one of the oldest public institutions in Croatia. So yeah, there's that. I should, though, use the new page instead of archived one, my mistake. I see that you fail to address your removal of Croatian Military Frontier link so I guess it's kosher now. And yeah, if "modern day Croatia is already used at least twice in the article with aproval of other editors then it's only logical to be used at the beginning of article so people have that info as soon as they open the article. Why would you object to article being more informative and user friendly? Do you have some personal issue that other admins clearly don't share?Slaven0 (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- The reference from the high school website is acceptable in the article about the high school (so long it isn't for anything controversial) since it is talking about itself. In the article about Tesla, and especially for a claim contested on the usual Balkan religio-nationalistic lines, it doesn't look ok. As for "Bach absolutism"; the only Bach I know is far more pleasant; but that aside, looking at the one I assume you're talking about, Baron Alexander von Bach, any link between "Roman Catholic Church control over education and family life" and "which language was in use at schools in the 1870s" is non-obvious, and wouldn't go in an article without a reliable source making the link explicit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- As I wrote on your talk page there are several military frontiers, Military Frontier and Croatian Military Frontier is not the same article, did you actually check this? Have you seen the map? No you didn't because you couldn't have in one second it took you to revert my changes. Did you check the references I put there? No you didn't because you couldn't have in one second it took you to revert my changes. "www.gimnazija-karlovac.hr" reference is the web page of the actual high school Tesla attended, and is from article about his high school linked few lines above my edit. How is it acceptable in that article but is not acceptable by you in Tesla article that links to that article? Did you check it? Did you translate it and check historical reference that I also included in my explanation of changes? Do you know what Bach absolutism was, when it was abolished and what rights did abolishment bring to Croatian part of empire? Did you check it? You just got stuck on passing reference that Serbian authors should be double checked when writing about Croatia. You didn't check my actual explanation or read the reference already used in other article.--Slaven0 (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)