Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Question

If for example the software program A has a green button in its about box (let's assume, that it is a very important one :-), and it is not written about anywhere in the universe, but everyone can install A and check for herself, would writing about it still be illegal "original research"? | [[User observer] 30 August 2006

If readers can obtain copies and check for themselves, the software is a published source; unless the person writing the article also wrote the program, it isn't original research. Ordinarily the program would be a published source and could be used on Wikipedia, unless there are some unusual restrictions about who can obtain copies. --Gerry Ashton 02:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I too like ask few questions. Is forums or something alike is "Reputable publications"? Whey have openly partisan and can have large readership. Rikis 07:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And one more: Is commenting movie is original reaserch, i.e., is there in movie explicit scenes or how many there is, or have one character affection to other if that demonstrative shown. Rikis 07:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

All primary v. secondary sources discussion moved

The primary v. secondary sources discussion has been moved to /Primary v. secondary sources discussion to free up the main talk page for other discussions. All addition discussion on this topic will take place there. Any related posts made will be moved there. FeloniousMonk 07:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears you moved all the discussion unrelated to primary v. secondary as well. - O^O 07:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's kinda the point... Since the absolutely fruitless discussion on primary v. secondary had become disruptive to the point of excluding all other discussions lately, there had essentially been no discussion unrelated to primary v. secondary for some time, really. It will all end up in the same archive when the unrelated primary v. secondary sub page discussion is settled. FeloniousMonk 07:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there had been some discussion on the self-citing issue, but I suppose the interested parties there can decide where they want to continue their discussion. - O^O 07:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you O^O for making it clear what the discussion was about. Wjhonson 07:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Unprotection of the NOR Page

Requesting unprotection of the main NOR page:

1. Jon Awbrey 07:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea, I oppose unprotection. A number of people here are still angling to make changes for which there is little consensus or support, you being one of them. FeloniousMonk 07:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I see instead a lot of confusion over exactly what the changes were or should be. It would be helpful if you could say which of the above two versions you are supporting FM Wjhonson 07:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the viewpoint you'd like to promote. That changes are even necessary is not a given. Many feel they are not. FeloniousMonk 07:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Which only illustrates your confusion. I am in favor of the Un-Changed version. So again what's the issue here? That you and I agree and you can't see that? Wjhonson 07:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never mentioned or implied which side you're on. Nor do I care; I am only concerned with maintaining the integrity of our fundamental policies and minimizing the amount of disruption here, which was notable. FeloniousMonk 07:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems then that FM and WJ are on the same side - maintaining the integrity of the policy. - O^O 07:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That the policy as represented by your now missing table-leftside is the longstanding policy that should be adhered to. And the rightside represents the attempt to alter that policy that we don't agree with. Yes. Wjhonson 07:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: FM, the page was protected so that we could discuss the issue. Now you are saying that our discussion is "disruptive". You seem to regard anything that disagrees with your Consensus of One as "disruptive". So I see no point in continuing to protect a version of the Page which absolutely nobody can claim is "longstanding". Jon Awbrey 07:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion was fruitless; a particular side became entrenched. As long as that discussion continued to dominate this page to the exclusion of all others, it was disruptive. That the page is protected is evidence enough that the "discussion" such as it was became disruptive. Discussion can continue here /Primary v. secondary sources discussion. FeloniousMonk 07:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

More than one side had become entrenched. - O^O 07:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

To everyone who feels the current version is not good enough and that this is not over but should be over please add one sentence that you would like to add to the current version at /Primary v. secondary sources discussion. Give it a try. Why not? WAS 4.250 10:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The result being a biased page creating the impression that there is no support for not changing the policy. No thanks. Deco 10:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The way the wording in that section currently stands is satisfactory. It currently represents a middle ground between what was there previously and the advocates of (wording if not content) change. Wjhonson 14:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not heard a new or compelling argument why the policy needs changing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Support for the change comes from SlimVirgin and Slrubenstein - you may want to ask them directly. - O^O 18:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You're still playing games. There has been no change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

On that issue Jossi and I agree. The wording of the policy before this whole situation started was completely satisfactory. The current wording is also satisfactory. I have no problem with either one. Wjhonson 23:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sincere when you write, "The current wording is also satisfactory?" I ask because I have stated repeatedly that I am pleased with the current (protected) form - yet you have continuously attacked my position. How can you attack my position that the current version is good, and then also state that you are satisfied with the current version? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I don't believe I've ever stated that the currently protected wording is unsatisfactory. There were prior versions where the word "primary" was removed from the intro and conclusing sentences of this section and only allowed to live in the exception section, dealing with an article strictly using primary sources. Those versions are what I have been objecting to. The current wording is a medium point between the old view and your original proposal. Wjhonson 00:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why were you going on about it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I was arguing against the *original* proposed change, which was to remove primary entirely from the introductory sentence and the concluding sentence and only have it exist in the exception sentence. The currently protected version has the word primary in all three sentences, which is satisfactory to me. The original proposal gave the apparence if not intent, that primary sources were ONLY allowed in the exception situation. That is what I argued against and what I've been arguing against since the first day the change was proposed. Irregardless of the intent, having the word primary only exist in the exception sentence can give the reading that that is the only situation in which primary sources can be used. Again, our discussion of our intent here is worthless the moment its archived. So the goal should be that the wording on the policy page is as clear as possible *without* the need to resort to reviewing the discussion. The currently protected version is satisfactory. Wjhonson 03:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

But why go on about it when the current version is fine with everyone? This has been incredibly disruptive and completely pointless. I hope lessons are learned. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I could ask you the same thing. I have now stated about five times, the the currently protected version is fine with me. I have not wavered (much) in my position, I believe, from the beginning, and yet people were still arguing against what I was saying. So Slim why were you? Wjhonson 03:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't have argued against you, because I had no idea what you were talking about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Slim, he is just lying. On 21:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC) I wrote a statement stating my satisfaction with the current (protected) version which included an edito or two by Wjhonson, and he immediately began criticizing the current, protected text. He is either a hypocrite, or just likes to troll for trouble. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me understand Rubenstein that you are called *me* a liar? Please correct me if I'm wrong here. Above Slim was speaking to me, and you to her saying "he is just lying". At any rate, if indeed you were talking about me, than I would like to clarify that I've been arguing against the *original* proposed change, not the current protected version. Wjhonson 16:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In summary: Much of a do about nothing, and a waste of editors' time. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The section was protected in the middle of several proposed changes. By chance, the frozen version includes the recent change in the long-standing rule on "Expert Editors", also at issue here. If you are going to unblock it "as is" on the basis of non-consensus for change, everything (and this includes the proposed revision on expert editors) should be reverted to what it was before all this started. Otherwise, the revision on 'expert editors" gets sneaked thru without (as you note) consensus. Pproctor 13:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If the page is fine with everyone, hurrah, we have consensus, and please unprotect :-) Otherwise, please state what you'd like changed, and we'll have an admin make the changes for starters. If things move smoothly again, once again, we can unprotect. Kim Bruning 14:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No change, but, in the clear absence of a consensus, just a restoration of the original section on ===Expert Editors===, just as the guidelines require. This reads:

• " "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. " Pproctor 19:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: There is no consensus. It is simply that some people's continuing objections to the recent innovations of SLR have been swept under the rug so that some other people can claim a consensus for these recent changes. Jon Awbrey 15:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have one remaining issue. Please see Wikipedia talk:No original research/Primary v. secondary sources discussion --Gerry Ashton 16:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

On the Integrity of WP:Policy

JA: Recent discussions in the arenas of the WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:VER pages have brought to the fore once again a recurring question about the integrity — the inseparable wholeness and mutual dependence — of Wikipedia's Triune Policy, traditionally marked on all three principal policy pages as follows:

Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three.

JA: I would like to discuss some of the consequences that this triple policy has on the arena of WP:NOR, specifically, why it is that WP must consider "Originality", in a very specific sense of the word, to be a "bad thing".

JA: There is one little thing that has to be mentioned before I can say much of anything sensible about that, however:

JA: A while back we had been doing what my old teachers called the "compare & contrast" exercise, examining in this case the related ideas of principle and policy.

1. On the comparison side, both concepts are used to express a higher level of general application than the mere counting of cases.
2. On the contrast side, a policy is a principle in action, a rule on which you plan to act. This makes a big difference between them.

JA: But it's Sunday, so I'll need to give this a rest until later in the day. Jon Awbrey 15:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical Datapoints for WP:NOR

JA: For the convenience of several discussions here and elsewhere! that have need of real data about the time evolution of local WP:NOR policy, here is a longitudinal sample of datapoints from WP:NOR's version history. The time series below lists the first non-vandal edition of each month since the incept date of the main page at 15:15 UTC on 21 Dec 2003. Jon Awbrey 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dec 2003	Feb 2004	Mar 2004	May 2004
Aug 2004	Sep 2004	Oct 2004	Nov 2004	Dec 2004
Jan 2005	Feb 2005	Mar 2005	Apr 2005	May 2005	Jun 2005
Jul 2005	Aug 2005	Sep 2005	Oct 2005	Nov 2005	Dec 2005
Jan 2006	Feb 2006	Mar 2006	Apr 2006	May 2006	Jun 2006
Jul 2006	Aug 2006

Slrubenstein's proposal

"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. We further hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. While specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia, they are often familiar with and have access to a wider range of verifiable sources and can thus be of special assistance in verifying or citing sources. Expert contributors, however, should not abuse the openness of Wikipedia, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or co-opting existing articles to promote their own career and works (please consult Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines).

For what it is worth Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This looks good to me. It might be worth pointing out that experts in a field will find it easier to find references to verify their contributions, and in fact they should use this knowledge of the literature to add references to their content. I've been able to find references about some of the areas I know about that would have been very difficult for a layman to find, but once there, are very easy for a layman to verify. Stephen B Streater 20:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, too. (I don't think we need to point out that experts have an easier time finding references for established facts. Anyone who is an expert already knows this.) Shouldn't e.g. published be i.e. published? —Steven G. Johnson 21:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I made an edit to the paragraph above incorporating, in my fashion, Stephen B Streater´s suggestion. I propose that we wait for two or three more editors to comment and if everyone agrees (or agrees after further friendly ammendments) I can incorporate the change. Let´s give it a day to see what if any objections there are, okay? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor nit: moreover should be however. —Steven G. Johnson

I urge keeping the present guideline. Why change when there is not a problem? Uniquely on Wikipedia, asertions of "vanity" can based purely on subjective "personal opinion". That is, they often fail the "No original Research" or "Neutral point of view" guidelines. So they can and will be easily abused-- I will not bore you again with my expereince. But, did I not have several years investment here, I would have left Wiki to Larry Sangors "Trolls and Fools".

As Sanger notes: "A few of the project's participants can be, not to put a nice word on it, pretty nasty. And this is tolerated. So, for any person who can and wants to work politely with well-meaning, rational, reasonably well-informed people--which is to say, to be sure, most people working on Wikipedia--the constant fighting can be so off-putting as to drive them away from the project. This explains why I am gone; it also explains why many others, including some extremely knowledgeable and helpful people, have left the project."

This is particularly the case where experts quite reasonably treat a Wiki entry as they would a review article and an editor (er) not "skilled in the art" votes his personal POV. While there is all this talk about "antielitism", I see numerous Wikipedia technical articles that were clearly written by people with considerable expertese and which would be absolute crap otherwise, as colorably, might be the whole project. E.g., how much does the average editor know about myocardial infarction or toxicology?

Though the usual suspects will accuse me of elitism for saying this, this is Wikipedia's dirty little secret-- in exchange for having to deal with the occasional troll and being called, as I have, a "fool" and "moron", we experts get to have a free interchange of ideas with each other. Minimize the opportunities for such trolling, and you might get more of us to stick around.

The best thing is to leave "vanity" out. NPOV, NOR, etc. suffice, as long as the Expert quotes his work at arm's length, just like in a review article. This is the present Wikipedia guideline and I have yet to see anyone point out a single case where it has caused problems. Pproctor 23:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish you wouldn't say "the present guideline" when you really are apparently referring to a previous version of the NOR guideline; please be clear what version you are referring to. —Steven G. Johnson 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, in an attempt to be succinct, are you suggesting youwould support my version if I deleted the last sentence? What do others involved think? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the below? (everything is from Slrubenstein except the last sentence is condensed.) WAS 4.250 01:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. We further hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. While specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia, they are often familiar with and have access to a wider range of verifiable sources and can thus be of special assistance in verifying or citing sources. See also Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines.

Looks good to me. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Me too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Indentation is really messed up below, and I want to be clear about which version I'm referring to, so I'm putting this comment here. I don't think the last sentence is necessary, but the version is fine otherwise, and I won't let my quibble stand in the way of reaching a good consensus on this. So, to be clear, Support. -- Donald Albury 12:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Take out the last sentence and I will go along. Also, the guidelines for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons allow limited use of personal information passed along by the subject of the biography to the editor. After "unverifiable" in the second sentence, I suggest placing "except as specified in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" or "except as specified elsewhere in the guidelines". This is to make these guidelines consistent. Pproctor 02:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The biographies page allows using "information supplied by the subject" only "if it is verifiable"; I don't see anywhere where it creates an exception to the verifiability policy, as you seem to be implying. —Steven G. Johnson 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Both Steven G. Johnson's and Slrubenstein's version are fine with me. I think the last sentence should be retained (I don't like the condensed form that WAS 4.250 proposed because the sentence "See also Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines" does not relate clearly to the rest). Regarding the vanity guideline: yes, it's not as fundamental as NPOV and Verifiability, and that's why it's a guideline and not a policy (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for the difference). The guideline itself makes this clear when it says that vanity is not in itself a reason for deletion. But the bottom line for me is that the guideline exists and is relevant in this section, so it should be mentioned. If you think something is wrong with the guideline, get it changed or even rejected, but don't try to hide it.

Where in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons does it say that unverifiable information is allowed? I can only find

"Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if it meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies, …"

which says exactly the opposite. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: That last bit about vanity is insulting in the extreme and has to go. Folks who already know the rules of research writing that apply in the real world don't need lectures about this stuff from people who write under funny pseudo nyms and [intemperate remarks deleted]. Jon Awbrey 05:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

With regard to BLP, it appears to me that some people have been trying to alter it to mean that the subject of a biography has say-so in the content of that biography beyond what was ever intended. BLP has never meant more than enhanced awareness (sensitivity) of the rights of the subject including moral and legal privacy rights and stern application of verifyability, NPOV, and no original research. It has never included the right to delete negative sourced relevant information. (Unbiased presentation is desireable, of course.) WAS 4.250 06:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the vanity bit, I can accept any of the above suggestions; although I can appreciate Jon's colorful way of expressing the distaste of an expert for the rambling assertions of the hoi polloi. WAS 4.250 06:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's what I would have thought before, but my experience here (with the Carl Hewitt case for which I collected some evidence as an extreme example) led me to believe that it is necessary to add a remark. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: The use of the word "vanity" here is simply inappropriate for reasons too numerous to mention, so I suppose I will have to:

1. It is not the term that is used in the real world for rules about self-citation.
2. A journal either allows self-citation or it does not.
3. Journals that do not allow it are not insinuating that an author's own work on a subject is somehow to be compared with the publications of a so-called "vanity press". That is simply not the issue.
4. Use of the pejorative term "vanity" for a self-citation invokes a presumption of bad faith that is simply alienating and insulting to potential contributors.
5. The thing that creates the extra problem here is Wikipedia's peculiar policy of allowing submissions under possibly multiple pseudonyms — the kinds of pseudonyms to which no reputation accrues and thus no responsibility attaches, as it would with even the normal sort of nom de plume in the real world. It is not just and proper for Wikipedia to be harassing the innocent with problems that its own policies created.

JA: I will probably think of a few more reasons after coffee. Jon Awbrey 12:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The WP:VAIN link is a bit pointed but there is no doubt in my mind that there should be a storng presumption against citing one's own research, or that of one's close collaborators. This problem is reduced when the research is published and discussed in a major journal; a contentious theory published in Nature will have plenty of feedback to help non-experts assess its merit. Citing PhD theses is a very poor idea, we've learned that from the Bogdanov business. I would say that publication in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, or in a standard text used by students in the field, should be the expected standard for cited references. Just zis Guy you know? 15:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Guy wants Wikipedia to be actively hostile to expert editors. I consider his passage to be an insult to experts. --Gerry Ashton 15:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how you get this reading from what Guy just wrote. It seems respectful and professional to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. The problem is that some editors do not like their POV challenged by some pointy-headed "Expert". The obvious solution is to drive off such experts to get a clear field. Note Larry Sellors comments above.

It seems like we are nearing a consensus. I find Jon Awbrey´s comments useless and inconsequential though. (1) he writes, "Folks who already know the rules of research writing that apply in the real world don't need lectures" which is silly as anyone can edit wikipedia, there are no entry requirements, and many editors do not know the rules of research rwriting - JA consistently thinks this policy is being written for him when in fact it is being written for a large and heterogeneous groups. (2) as others have pointed out, we have had problems with vanity pages and have every reason to think we will in the future, so there is no harm and some good in explicitly discouraging them. (3) JA thinks expert writers will take offense. As an expert writer let me say, "no, only insecure expert writers will take offense." Wikipedia is full of expert writers none of whom have complained about this and I doubt they ever will. (4) JA thinks this is a journal. It is not. It is sui generis. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

True, most experts don't complain. The only reason I personally complained is because (a certain party) got cross-wise with me on one page, found out my ID and then proceeded to delete my postings on other pages in revenge. His excuse was that citing my own published works is "vanity". The only thing that stopped him was when I cited the existing rule to him. Which rule, he proceeded to try to change unilaterally. Which is why we are having this discussion. You cannot give trollers like him the ability to abuse the system. Pproctor 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your version looks good to me, Slrubenstein. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasy going to say the same thing. I publish in "real" journals, and it's hard to imagine taking offense at Slrubenstein's version. True, a professional should not need to be told this, but neither would he/she mind seeing codification of rules he/she already accepts. (BTW, I've never heard of a journal that doesn't allow self-citation; it's hard to even imagine such a thing.) It doesn't impose any additional procedural hurdles for expert contribution, unlike the present NOR page. Moreover, it's useful not only to deal with egregious cases (there are a few unprofessional jerks who manage to publish), but also to let non-professional editors know what to hope for and expect when dealing with experts. —Steven G. Johnson 16:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have readily agreed, But then I got racked over the coals on "vanity' as part of one editors sick revenge. There are many such on Wikipedia. If you give the likes of him the ability to use "Vanity", they will use it. A true vanity piece can be readily handled under (especially) NOPV and NOR. Pproctor 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The question is, do we have a stable enough agreement here (and concerning primary/secondary source) to unblock the policy page? An alternative is to unblock it only to admins for the purpose of making this one change. I of course can´t do that. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only no, but hell no. Not as long as there is any reference to the vanity guideline. Again, quoting wikipedia-cofounder Larry Sanger

• "A few of the project's participants can be, not to put a nice word on it, pretty nasty. And this is tolerated. So, for any person who can and wants to work politely with well-meaning, rational, reasonably well-informed people--which is to say, to be sure, most people working on Wikipedia--the constant fighting can be so off-putting as to drive them away from the project. This explains why I am gone; it also explains why many others, including some extremely knowledgeable and helpful people, have left the project." Pproctor 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for Getting Back on Track

JA: I suggest that we return the main page to a its truly long-standing formulation of August 1st 2006, and start over from there. I suggest that the people who have been wasting all of our times for the last couple of weeks with their highly contentious and non-consensual alterations of long-standing WP:NOR policy cease and desist from continuing their hijacking and lockdown of the page. Jon Awbrey 16:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We are on track - you keep disrupting a collegial and productive discussion in order to go off-track.

This is not a "collegal and productive discussion". I have spent most of my adult life having those and I know the difference. It is why they pay me the big bucks. This is simply an effort to railroad thru against opposition a change in a long-established Wiki rule that worked just fine until I evolked it against an abuser of the system. This editor (who has been chastized before for abuses) then inititiated this rule change. If you are going make such aa change, you must produce some reason other than maintaining ideological purity. Pproctor 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a version of the paragraph in question:

"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. We further hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. While specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia, they are often familiar with and have access to a wider range of verifiable sources and can thus be of special assistance in verifying or citing sources. See also Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines.

It is based on a version I proposed, and has been changed to reflect comments by Stephen B Streater, Steven G. Johnson, and WAS 4.250 (this is what we at Wikipedia call a collaborative process) and it has the support of Jossi, Jitse Niesen, Slim Virgin, and Jayjg. Now, this is what I call staying on track. Let´s make this as good as we can and put it in. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: The WP:NOR is intended to define Original Research and to explain why it is not permitted in WP. It achieved that purpose succinctly enough on or about the Winter Solstice of 2003. The lion's share of the ensuing bulk is simply superfluous and off-topic here, being the proper business of other policy and guideline pages. If an editor cites a prior publication that is published in a reputable form, then that is not original research, and is not the concern of this policy. WP rules do not even permit us to speculate on whether an editor working here under the name of Pseu-Pseu-Pseudio (any dissemblance to the name of an actual WPean is purely coincidental) really is the author of that secondary source that he-she seems to like citing so much. The relevance and reliability of citations have to be judged on their own merits alone. It is hardly fair to be picking on editors who have been kind enough to disclose their day jobs at the Daily Planet when there are so gol-darned many caped and hooded usual suspects runing [sic] amok all over the place. Now, go chase the Riddler or Cool Hand Lex or somebody (standard disclaimer of unintended tychenyms). Jon Awbrey 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jon, I read your comment above, and other comments of yours and fail to understand the purpose of it all. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: The objective is to end up with a policy on Original Research that is clear, that makes sense to talk about, and that can reasonably be required and fairly be enforced within the current framework of Wikipedia. That means avoiding all sorts of extraneous matters that are a waste of time to talk about because they cannot be dictated ethically nor enforced with fair and equal effectiveness on all participants in this project. Jon Awbrey 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

1. The lion's share of the ensuing bulk is simply superfluous and off-topic here, being the proper business of other policy and guideline pages. Most people don't read every policy. A little redundancy helps. A lot of people think the policies are too wordy, but we aren't going to solve that issue here and now. We have a specific subsection we are addressing and changing the subject or suggesting the subsection be deleted is not even close to something a majority will agree to.
2. WP rules do not even permit us No you are completlely misunderstanding the nature of Wikipedia. The rules are to assist our use of common sense and not prevent our use of common sense.
3. The relevance and reliability of citations have to be judged on their own merits alone. Not true at all. If a known troublemaker or troll or banned person adds something with a link to a source; a sensible reaction can be to delete it without bothering to read the material at the link. We are volunteers with only so much time and we are encouraged to make good judgements and not blindly follow rules.
4. It is hardly fair to be picking on editors who have been kind enough to disclose their day jobs So? We aren't fair. Tough. Life isn't fair. wikipedia does not exist to be fair. When not being fair helps to create a better freer encyclopedia then it is appropriate to not be fair.
5. enforced with fair and equal effectiveness No law is ever enforced totally fairly and equally. The question is it more helpful to have such and such wording or less helpful. WAS 4.250 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: It's a weekend, so this respondez-vous may take a couple of days.

1. A wise man once said, "Redundancy is the essence of information" — okay, it was me, so chute me for my vanity. BUT, and that's a really BIG BUT, trying to sneak in a major change of policy here, on this more tangential page, and then using the Ensuing Deformation as an excuse to "conform it" somewhere else, is an illegitimate way to proceed. Jon Awbrey 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You speak of "redundancy", while you miss that your long comments about this policy are becoming just that. I am no interested in such a conversation. WP:OR is serving us well as is. Small adjustments here and there are welcome. but a major re-write is out of the question for the simple reason that it is unlikely that it will happen. So, maybe it wold be better to go back and put our attention editing articles rather than discussing policy ad nauseum, shall we?. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: I suggest that you redirect your remarks to those editors who are trying to brute force impose a major rewrite of WP:NOR, because that ain't me. Jon Awbrey 13:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, how about this?

Two people object to a word which is only used to descibe a link, so why not use other words from that page to describe the link? How about this? (Only the label for the link is changed.)

"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. We further hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. While specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia, they are often familiar with and have access to a wider range of verifiable sources and can thus be of special assistance in verifying or citing sources. See also Wikipedia's conflict of interest when citing oneself guideline.

-- WAS 4.250 19:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

WAS, either change the name of the Wikipedia page itself, or use its correct title here. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought I made clear that my suggestion here involves refering to a guideline by a phrase describing that guideline rather than refering to it by its title. Changing the actual title is an interesting idea but outside the scope of my suggestion. WAS 4.250 20:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling reason that we have to use the guideline's actual title, especially when its actual title is not very descriptive and sounds prejudical. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

WAS, you were being clear. So was I. I didn´t misunderstand you, I disagreed with you. The title does sound prejudicial which is a good reason to change it. But as long as that is the actual title of the guideline I think it is disingenuous to try to avoid controversy by masking its name. I think you are making a mistake to turn this into semantics. The trwo people who object - are you SURE they object just to the word "vanity?" If they do, tell them to go tço the Vanity page and argue to change the title, because that is where their criticisms belong. If they are not really concerned with the word but with the guidelines to which the word is attached, changing the name is not going to make a difference. Either way, this seemingly easy compromise is no sollution it just evades the issues. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not link to the guideline using what its title should be, and then go there and argue to change the name on the grounds that we're not even willing to link to it from WP:NOR with its current name? I mean, I guess I understand what you're saying about disingenuity, but that seems an odd point to hang up on. It seems to me that using a different link text pushes the conflict closer to actualizing, rather than avoiding it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, do not get hung up on my objection. WAS was appealing to two specific people who objected to my revised version. If those two people agree to WAS´s version, and no oine else objects, hell, I am all for it. It is then just a matter of an admin changing the protection to allow for admin edits, and another admin to make the change. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't terribly mind WAS's version, except I would phrase it less awkwardly: See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest.

I do think Pproctor is barking up the wrong tree, however. If he/she objects to the vanity guideline, then this is the wrong Talk page to have that discussion on. Still, if a simple rewording allows us to move forward on this, I'm all for it. —Steven G. Johnson 20:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We agree that WK:NOR is the wrong place for a vanity guideline. In fact, this is precisely what I am objecting too. Best to simply restore the project page to what is was before or some functional equivalent. Pproctor 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and brought up the idea of a name change at Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines#Name of this guideline. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal implications

Just curious (and maybe this can be added to the policy page as additional rationale), but can the appearance of OR on Wikipedia also be considered legally dangerous? What I mean is Dr. X posts an unpublished theory on Wiki, Dr. Y who claims to have discovered the theory first get angry because Dr. X made the theory public before Dr. Y was able to publish his $100,000-contracted treatis, so Dr. Y sues Wikipedia. Or Dr. X posts a brand new formula for shoe polish on Wiki, someone decides to make said shoe polish, and ends up blowing himself up. Survivors sue Wiki. That sort of thing. That's actually the first rationale I thought of when I first heard of the NOR rule. Just a thought. 23skidoo 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think such things are covered by Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Deco 02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. General "bragging rights", may be important, but have no legal status, the only legal claims anyone has to intellectual proprety are in the patent, trademark, and copyright laws. ----

JA: A more complete record, still somewaht in progress, is being developed here:

• Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Historical_datapoints

JA: Jon Awbrey 03:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

On WikiPseudoConsensus

JA: Few people in the real world dream that consensus can be "neared" simply by dissing all dissenting voices. There's even guidelines a'plenty in WP that say the same thing, but they are constantly being dismissed by a number of folks who seem to think that sui generis means concensual suicide. Luckily, WP is not really such an i-land unto itself. Ding-Dong! It's for you. Jon Awbrey 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please try to get facts straight even if only for very short periods of time. (1) I didn´t use the word consensus and ¡guess what! I did not on purpose, (2) I don´t diss all dissenting voices, in fact there have been several changes to what I originall proposed. I do of course diss your voice, but that is only because it makes no sense. Wikipedia is indeed for me and other expert editors like Steve Johnson none of whom have problems with this language. It is also for non-expert editors who appreciate being educated in professional standards. It is also for ding-dongs who insist on using this as a forum for blowing as much hot air out their rear-ends as possible. We need policies that accommodate all. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: Just by way of checking that we are looking at the same page, are you the same Slrubenstein who wrote "It seems like we are nearing a consensus" above? Thanks, Jon Awbrey 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I assumed (I see wrongly) that you were referring to the last thing I wrote, where I abandoned the word consensus. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: I suggest that WP editors who have been gracious, responsible, and up-front enough to contribute under their real world names simply ignore all of the gratuitous but ungracious advice that they get from editors who don't. These are matters that cannot even be fairly discussed except within the separate rules of a peer-review subsystem. Jon Awbrey 17:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this right, Jon. You suggest a separate set of rules, or rather no rules at all, for editors working under their own names. How exactly do you propose to tell when someone is editing under their own name? There is no way for you to verify this. Wikipedia is not a peer-review system and never will be. You are looking for something else entirely. The complete MediaWiki software is freely available to you: why don't you set up your own system that works the way you want it to, with full peer review? There is definitely a need for a peer-reviewed Wiki-based system: here's your chance to start it. Gwernol 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: That would involve us in an off-topic discussion, which I will be drawn into only so far as to say that it is an off-topic discussion for questions about WP:NOR. And so are discusssions of WP:RS, which is a separate issue to be linked here and passed by, and so are discussions of biography and vanity, which don't even deserve the distraction of a mention here. Jon Awbrey 19:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)