Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite 5th December 2004 to 5th February 2005)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

See also:

• Wikipedia talk:No original research
• Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite)
• Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite -- archive 1)

Primary and secondary sources

Here's my understanding. What is regarded as a primary source often depends on where you're standing within the information heirarchy. If I punch a police officer because I'm furious, I am the best-possible primary source regarding the question: "Why did Slim punch the police officer?" because I'm the only person with direct access to my feelings of fury. Another primary source, but not such a good one, might be an eye-witness who, if asked why Slim punched the police officer, would say: "I don't know, but s/he looked furious." I might object to the use of eye-witnesses because they're only secondary sources from my point of view, and have no direct access to information explaining why I acted as I did. So that's what I mean by the definition of the terms being dependent upon your position within the information heirarchy. However, a newspaper article reporting the punching of the police officer would definitely be regarded as a secondary source.

Most writers (historians, journalists) will regard a primary source as someone with direct access to the events, either as a participant or as a witness. A secondary source is a reporting, by a third party like a journalist, of what the participants and eye-witnesses said. Wikipedia articles will almost always rely on secondary source material. An exception would be when quoting from a book or article written by a participant or eye-witness; for example, when quoting from an autobiography, we would be using primary source material (I think. Am I right about that?).

Chris, you had concerns about Pokeman and Star Trek. Does the above ease your concerns or add to them? Slim 18:01, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

About terminology, my understanding is at least very similar to Slim's. I think the "information heirarchy" is key.

If you're following an information trail, a primary source is the origin of the trail. A secondary source is based on primary source, and tertiary sources are based on secondary sources or other tertiary sources.

But Slim apparently defines "primary source" as only the witnessess, and I would include any documents or recordings based directly on the matter (I'm using those words broadly). For instance, minutes of a meeting, a diary or a photo, etc. The Wikipedia article also defines it to include artifacts, which makes sense.

This is from the article on secondary sources:

"Secondary sources, in the study of history, are those writings which were not penned contemporaneously with the events in question. It is a contrast with a primary source, which is some form of information which can be taken as an artifact of its times."

But those articles are focused on historical research, and I'm not sure whether the general reader would understand the terms in the same way. Maurreen 06:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, I could be wrong, but I think generally, the level of sourcing can't be blanketly classified based on the form (whether it is a book or magazine or whatever). It depends on the context and details. Maurreen 06:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maurren, I much prefer your approach to this, and I like the image of following an information trail and a primary source being the origin of the trial. Yes, I would also include minutes of a meeting, photograph etc. And I like the introduction of the historian's definition re: artifacts, although a problem there is that a newspaper would count as "an artifact of its times." Feel free to rewrite (delete, revert) anything I have written. This is a draft, and so my additions are only suggestions. Edit them freely. No offense will be taken. Slim 20:54, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

proposed policy

I have made an edit to the draft of the policy, and I wanted to report it here as well -- this is essentially what I think the policy is and ought to be:

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Therefore, wikipedia is not the place for presenting original research.

Original research can take the form of primary sources or secondary sources. Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations. Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data.

In some cases, where wikipedia articles make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, wikipedia articles may be based entirely on primary sources, and may be considered secondary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events). In most cases, however, wikipedia articles are tertiary sources that are based on both primary and secondary sources. Please cite sources. This is important for two reasons: it helps ensure verifiability, and provides resources to readers who wish to pursue the topic at greater length.

A rule of thumb is that most of the material referred to in Wikipedia articles should have been published elsewhere in a reputable publication. What constitutes a reputable publication depends on the topic. For topics of scholarly concern, reputable publications are usually peer reviewed academic journals, or books published by academic presses.

In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. In such cases, articles should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view.

I didn't write all of this of course, I tried to incorporate what I could of the original policy, other proposals, and comments on the talk pages and listserve. Slrubenstein

Looks pretty good to me. The "apple pie" reference might be a little mystifying - perhaps just something like "the sky is blue". I'm still planning to do a lengthier "worked examples" section collected from existing articles, will start adding those after the policy page proper is updated - a few at a time, so they can be debated and fine-tuned individually. Stan 05:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. To make things less abstract, however, we should also include a set of examples of unacceptable vs. acceptable contributions. —Steven G. Johnson 19:49, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

The apple pie thing comes from a specific example someone brought up. It might be a good idea to remove it. I am not sure whether it is a good idea at all for policies to have any examples in the intro -- but if you think so, I'd start by looking at some of our featured articles. Slrubenstein

I wasn't suggesting that the examples should go in the intro; they can go in a subsection. It's also probably sufficient to make synthetic examples for illustration purposes; they need not be actual "naturally occurring" examples. —Steven G. Johnson 17:52, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Verifiability

I think some of this is overlapping with Wikipedia:Verifiability, and I think some of it should be kept separate. Maurreen 06:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bear in mind verifiability is a proposed policy not an official one. No original research is the official policy. :ChrisG 11:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chris, do you see the issue of verifiability as impinging on or altering the "no original research" policy? I would say it's important not to repeat things too much and not to contradict. I liked the verifiability paper. Can someone tell me: how do we know when something is only a proposal?

Maurreen, I would get a few historians to look over our draft and get them to rewrite the primary and secondary sources bit if they feel they can improve it. Slim 20:54, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Chris, good point, I didn't think about that.

But to some extent, our draft is broadening from "research." I don't think that such a broadening has the same consensus. I have mixed thoughts on it myself. I think what I'm trying to suggest is that for the time being, we confine the scope of this policy to "research", and that any broadening be taken up after we get as far as we can in the area where there is broad agreement. I'm not sure well expressing myself on this.

Slim, yes, I agree with getting more people to look at the proposal in general overall. But maybe we should wait till we're satisfied with our own work. Maurreen 04:22, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I always saw this draft as being a major update of the wording of the existing policy, i.e. people would recognise it as being in the spirit of the original draft. This means it can be more precise and can broaden the policy to some extent where it is clear there is a consensus across the community. That means there is a line that we mustn't step over or the draft becomes a proposal that would require a vote, which I doubt there would be much support for.

It is perfectly acceptable to bring in citation to the policy; because that already sits in the style guide and this policy is its logical location. It is generally accepted that citation is ideal and that academic and controversial topics require it.

I think it is acceptable to bring verifiability into this policy; because it is another way of explaining 'No original research.' You can tell whether a policy is official or proposed by looking at the category at the bottom of the article. I think verifiability will be accepted as a natural part of this policy; but people don't want too many official policies, because then there is too much for an individual, especially newbie to keep track of.

If we can agree to a form of words clarifying the primary, secondary and tertiary source distinctions would be valuable. But this may prove difficult.

If we can agree what we mean by a reputable publisher then again that would be valuable.

In writing the policy we need to ensure that it is not too prescriptive and seen as being deletionist. It mustn't interfere too much with pop culture, sport and other less academic topics. :ChrisG 09:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

intro

Hey, I revised the intro in the draft. I tried to take into account the recent discussion including various complaints -- it should be clear that there are many different kinds of primary sources; that some articles will rely on primary sources and thus be secondary, not tertiary; that current events articles won't be tertiary; that there are different kinds of "authorities" -- I think I managed to include all this in a logical order. Slrubenstein 19:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I feel you should refine the term 'academic presses' From the UK viewpoint I would class these as presses attached to universities and perhaps major libraries or institutions such as English Heritage. Maybe defined as 'Not for profit'. I can think of several UK and European publishers who publish academic standard books as well as their regular fare. Think of Allan Lane/Penguin.Apwoolrich 20:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course you are right -- in the USA too there are very well-considered scholarly books even published by trade presses. I guess the question is not only what criteria, but how detailed to be here? I don't think we can mention everything, and I was not trying to provide an exhaustive or exclusive list. But you make a good point. Another way to put it is, "books reviewed in academic journals" (because this might include some books published by trade presses like Random House or Basic Books). What do you think? Slrubenstein 20:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you are being too restrictive. When you refer to reputable publishers I'm pretty sure that Jimbo is only trying to exclude vanity press. A view if true that I would agree with. Additionally the definition of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources should be in a section of its own, not in the intro. :ChrisG 20:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with you. The current policy provides these explanations of "primary" and "secondary" in the first paragraph, and I think that it is important for the sake of clarity. As for being restrictive -- well, Jimbo may or may not be referring to vanity presses, that isn't the issue. But the wording I propose is "usually" which I think is a fair ideal. In some fields this may not be important but I have been in plenty of edit-wars on such topics as race, gene, population genetics, etc.where academic books certainly trump other books. We are researching an encyclopedia and I don't think there is anything wrong with making academic books an ideal as long as we do not require this in all cases ("usually" doesn't suggest that!). After all, anyone can go to a library. What is great about wikipedia is that you do not have to be a PhD. in something to write an article about it. But we should have high standards when it comes to content, don't you agree? Slrubenstein 21:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind usually; but valuable books are not just published by academic presses. Most of the non fiction books I have in my collection are published by commercial publishers (UK). In addition I would avoid ruling in non-profit publishers, because that lets in any non profit established to support a political or religious view; I think you will find that lets in a whole host of highly questionable sources. :ChrisG 21:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... I agree with both your points -- well-stated. I am glad we can agree on "usually." The reason I added the thing about non-profits was to respond to Apwoolrich's point which I thought was motivated by the same concern as your's -- to underscore the "usually" by mentioning other categories of presses. Of course your NPOV issue is important. I see two possible solutions: either you and Apwoolrich work out a compromise, or I (or you) add to the proposed text an NPOV warning. I incline towards the latter because of course books published by an academic press, or articles in a peer-reviewed journal, also represent points of view. In other words, "no original research" and "NPOV" are two separate policies, and we need both. By the way, I bet the best of your non-fiction books either cite books published by academic presses, or were written by authors who consulted books by academic presses! But we agree, it cannot be "exclusively academic presses". Slrubenstein 21:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to raise an objection, but I dislike this new introduction. I find it very confusing. What is a secondary source isn't really defined, just hinted at. And the bit about allowing non-academic non-for-profit presses opens every can of worms this policy document should be trying to close. That basically means anyone with the ability to desk-top publish can be counted as a published source. Slim 07:03, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think the intro should only be about a paragraph long, and then it should be followed by the section on ::What is original research and what is not. I think that section is a concise summary.

Also, I think we might be putting too much emphasis on various levels of sourcing. ::Maurreen 07:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Slim and Maureen. I've amended the draft to take into account these views. Moved the intro back to an earlier version, reordered the sections and created a section for primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I've also made another stab at what is meant by a reputable publisher in academic articles.:ChrisG 10:24, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chris, I much prefer what you have done. I just have one question: What would be a legitimate example of a Wikipedia article that was based on a primary source? To me, a primary source is what journalists speak to. You read something in a newspaper, or you hear a rumor, and you want to follow up, so you find out who the main players are, and you contact them directly. You get the story from the horse's mouth. That is taking information from primary sources. And that's exactly what Wikipedia has to avoid, because any WIki editor could claim to have spoken to X, Y or Z, but they couldn't prove it, and other editors wouldn't know how to evaluate it.

On the other hand, if there's a trial, and I get hold of a trial transcript, I should be able to use that in a Wikipedia article, even though no one could check that I was quoting it accurately (assuming it wasn't on the Web). That is primary source material, and would be allowed, I assume.

Regarding using a diary, however, that would not be allowed, unless it had been published, because otherwise an editor could refer to the diary of a friend who claims to have witnessed President Bush having sex etc. So I feel we need to pin this down even further, to close loopholes for the future. Slim 10:32, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think a legitimate article based largely on primary sources would be one that is based solely on an original publication, i.e. an article on a book or a chapter in the Bible or a recent government report. You wouldn't describe in any detail what the book, chapter or report said without using the original. The more difficult issue for me, is if there is no academic research on those primary materials, to what extent can a contributor make non-controversial analysis and criticism?

One solution is to say that in current affairs, Wikipedia considers quality newspapers to be secondary sources. This would then allow us to have a section analysing a government report or recent book. However, what if there isn't any serious analysis made by the newspapers? :ChrisG 10:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree that the current version is better than the one I suggested (which doesn't mean the one I suggested can't be improved upon). I have three problems. First, if the problem with my proposal was that it didn't define original research, this version is no better -- like mine, it just provides examples. But I have a problem with the examples: they don't include other forms of original research (e.g. interviews, field research, experimental results) that are also inappropriate for encyclpopedias. Second, I object to the quote of Jimbo in the second paragraph -- it risks making him too much of an authority firgure. Third, it is strange for the intro to introduce the term "tertiary" source before it has explained what primary and secondary sources are. Slrubenstein

"Reputable publications"

Defining "reputable" or "legitimate" publications is tricky. It also depends on the context. I'm not sure how much we should go into that. Maurreen 07:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the point intended is not made clearly here, but I'm not sure how to fix it: "For topics of scholarly concern, reputable publications are usually peer reviewed academic journals, or books published by academic presses. In many cases, this also includes not-for-profit presses; presses associated with nonprofit organizations, governmental or nongovernmental organizations may also be important sources, although they may be partisan."

I think I know the point, but that is only from discussion, not from the text here. For example, the way I read the above, it discourages me from quoting the Bible or Shakespeare. Maurreen 10:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chris took care of this. Maurreen 11:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shucks

I wish there were a way to tell while you're editing that someone else is doing the same thing. I'm really happy with our teamwork here. :) Maurreen 10:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I've had my burst of inspiration. Over to you guys :ChrisG 10:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Documented vs. published

I'm quoting Slim from somewhere above: "On the other hand, if there's a trial, and I get hold of a trial transcript, I should be able to use that in a Wikipedia article, even though no one could check that I was quoting it accurately (assuming it wasn't on the Web)."

People could check it, just not as easily. I have mixed thoughts on this, as I do about general direct experience. Maurreen 11:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One possibility is to allow use of formal, official documents. Maurreen 11:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Self-publishing

Earlier in this talk pages are several references of 'vanity publishing'. I feel this needs clarifying since there are several types of this. The commonly accepted definition is the author paying a publisher to produce a book which the writer then is responsible for selling. This usually applies to verse and fiction,which a commercial publisher would not otherwise undertake. In effect the publisher does a design and print job, and has no view on the editorial content. The auther often ends up with a garage full of books which he has to try and sell.

But the term can also apply to niche topics such as local history, for which a publisher cannot see a big enough market to make the book viable. This is not so say the books lack academic credibility, and many valuable books with high academic standards are produced in this way; I don't know the situation in the US, but its common in the UK.

'Vanity publishing' is often used pejoratively, and I feel we should not use it here in a blanket way since it can be applied wider than it ought to be.

In addition books are written, often on academic topics, which the publisher cannot realistically undertake without a subsidy to offset production costs, as the likely sales are too small to give a big enough profit. Without a subsidy important books would not get printed. Topics like company histories fall into this class. Are we to exclude these as these as 'vanity publishing' as well?

The economics of publishing and the ease of self-publishing now, either by DTP or on web pages means that writers are able to by-pass regular publishing channels, and I know academics who use this method in preference to print. I recently wrote a chapter for a book about Joseph Clement, the engineer who made Babbage's first calculating machine. There is a fine personal web-site which has on it a mass of documention and interpetation about Babbage's work, and this information is not otherwise published. It has thus not been peer reviewed, but the author's credibility is such I am happy to use it. If I wrote a Wikipedia piece, under the present rules, I would have to leave it out. Indeed it might be difficult to even write the article since I used it in the printed account.

Jimbo mentions about citing peer-reviewed articles as the basis, but the way publishing is going, away from the printed page, and so perhaps cutting out the peer-review and independent editing stage means we are likely to be unable to use perfectly respectable material at all under the present rules, and I fear the problem is likely to get worse.

I am feeling my way as to how we ought to approach this, but if the writer of the reference for a Wikipedia article has some clout in publishing terms, the work has proper source standards, the rules ought to be elastic enough to allow the work to be accommodated in a Wikipedia article without fear of rejection if it is not in print form and has been self-published so not peer reviewed. The Wikipedia author ought to be able to judge the credibility of his sources, and the way Wikipedia works means we do have the means of correcting mistakes. Apwoolrich 19:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think I agree. That is, I doubt that using any particular source or type of source should be banned. (I changed the header; hope you don't mind.) Maurreen 19:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the draft to say 'probably exclude'. I accept that there are exceptions to the rule; but generally we should treat such publications as questionable materials. This is a good rule of thumb; because we are not in a good position to judge the quality of such materials, not least because of their limited avaliability.

We will find, however, that for certain subjects like local history that such publications will be the only secondary material avaliable; and so our articles will have to use them. But where we have alternative materials avaliable I think it is a good rule. :ChrisG 19:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)