Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Apwoolrich (talk | contribs) at 16:07, 4 December 2004 (→On secondary sources: Academic writing standards). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Miscellaneous

Okay, so say I disagree with an article because it discussing some minor viewpoint that has never been refuted because the viewpoint only generated one or two papers that were ignored by the scholarly community. The original idea that is junk has source material. Refuting the idea will require original research because nobody else has done it. How should this be done? I can post a link to say a Kuro5hin discussion. Is that adaquate? Would it be better to create an article in Meta and then link to that? Jrincayc 18:11, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think an article you've created in Meta would be an acceptable source. If there is no original material refuting something, then we can't report that, in my opinion. Angela. 00:41, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Reddi: I'm not really clear on the information you put here, but as far as I can tell #2 at least implies it's OK to outright lie in articles. - Hephaestos 03:32, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The information is from the links in the article. ... the other points are from List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories ...

Sincerely, JDR

I have read them. I see nothing in them that would imply asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results (emphasis mine) is not grounds for exclusion. I apologize however for screwing up and reverting too much earlier, I only question the last edit with the list at the end. - Hephaestos 03:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are articles, I would guess, that assert claims which contradict experimentally established results ... that in of itself is why some theories are "disputed" it would seem. This does not mean that it's "ok" to lie ... but to note exactly that (ie., whatever the toipic is, that it does contradict the experiments currently know) ... Sincerely, JDR

Ah. I think I understand now; let me know if you disagree with my next edit. - Hephaestos 03:52, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It looks good to me ... hopefully others will comment. JDR 03:56, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! - Hephaestos 04:00, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In a discussion elsewhere on wikipedia (], I wrote the following. Some of it may be worthwhile in salvaging into the article, but I wouldn't presume adding it myself without some support. Martijn faassen 22:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I come to wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) not to read the original views of an individual but to survey the consensus views (possibly several competing ones) on the state of the world (science, history, culture, etc). This way I see the outline of the landscape, and learn some interesting details mostly undisputed, and see some connections, and see what the important theories and debates are. Misplaced Pages tries to be careful in presenting different points of view; it is helped in this as so many people can contribute. If at the same time I can run into singular original views unexpectedly, this will reduce the value of the wikipedia as an overview of the world and ideas at large. I cannot trust it in this function anymore.

Being an overview and a summary, it cannot present the new ideas of a single individual, no matter how true, because this would be misleading as a summary. An idea shared by many should be presented, an idea shared by a significant minority should be presented, but if all the original ideas of singular individuals are to be presented, the forest would be invisible for the trees. Present these completely original ideas in other channels. If it then becomes well-known and debated, it can enter wikipedia.

I am in some difficilty here, for what seems to be discussed is original research in new ideas and theories. Where does original historial writing come in? As an example, I have made a special study of early encyclopaedias and have a number of them on my shelves. I wish to write a piece about Rees's Cyclopaedia and have information about the contributors, printing history and content. I have published about this in relation to the work of the technical writer John Farey, jr (1791-1851). I have also written about Farey for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, The biographical dictionary of Civil engineers, as well as a number of journal articles on aspects of his life and work. He was the son of John Farey, jr the gologist and discoverer of Farey Numbers, who is mentioned in Misplaced Pages and deserves a proper page.

I am the only writer on Farey Jr, since the original DNB and I have had no feed-back from anyone. Does this mean I should not include him in Misplaced Pages? Likewise Rees's Cyclopaedia has never been written up, yet is an important source for Regency endeavour, in particular on the technology and sciences of the time. It is widely quoted by modern writers on the history of technology and industrial archaeology.

The problem in the UK is that technical history (the history of the useful arts) is not studied in higher education. A recent paper stated that we have 1 professor of the history of technology, compared with about 80 in the States. Such journals as there are are produced in very small print runs,often <500, and as there is very little academic demand few libraries subscribe to them. I am not suggesting journal articles, but Misplaced Pages would be an ideal way of disseminating encyelopaedia style writings, especially as they can be linked to other pages of relevance. Apwoolrich 14:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem here. If you write an article on Rees's Cyclopaedia, then it's about a clearly-defined thing. The facts can be verified by anyone else with access to a copy. I'd say go ahead. -- Tarquin 21:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Where to draw the line?

Where and when does a research topic stop being novel research of a few proposers and start being the kind of received wisdom Jimbo is talking about? I guess the line is rather vague, and I think the following kinds of points constitute cumulative evidence for acceptability:

• Original ideas are stable and are used in other research;
• Claims have met with and overcome scholarly challenges;
• Existence of one or more textbooks, or standard introductory texts;
• Many researchers beyond the original proponents apply the ideas;
• Several discussions on mailing lists;
• Several articles in field are widely cited.

I'm guessing the above sort of criteria will be widely accepted, but the last three criteria are quantitative, and I am not sure what kinds of numbers to attach to them. Somewhat well-defined rules of thumb would be valuable, since the acceptability of quite a lot of material turns on them. I'll suggest that we should be seeing at least 7 citations apart from the core propoents, at least 12 articles principally devoted to the topic, and twenty or so general comments on mailing lists. How does this sound? Should I post this to the main page? ---- Charles Stewart 00:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not:

10. Primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Misplaced Pages will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. But of course you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals. See Misplaced Pages:No original research.

This suggests that the line is drawn in a much less exclusive manner than I suggested above -- once a piece of research has passed the test of peer review, it is considered established knowledge, and so fair game for Misplaced Pages to document. This gels with the first paragraph of this article:

Misplaced Pages is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question. Misplaced Pages is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source (one that generalizes existing research or secondary sources of a specific subject under consideration). A Misplaced Pages entry is a report, not an essay. Please cite sources.

I've edited the main page accordingly. BTW we need to document tertiary source ---- Charles Stewart 03:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Books and movies

There are a number of wikipedia articles regarding books and movies. While obviously you can't write "critics rave" without citing someone, I am wondering about the plot synopsis that is often included. If you see a movie and give a summary of events, or read a book and give a summary of the topics covered, does that count as original research? --Uncle Bungle 14:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On secondary sources

I want to propose that wikipedia is not a "secondary" source either. I think the definition of primary sources and secondary sources must be cleared up.

A primary source is the crudest product of research (whether an archeological dig, a trip to an archive, or an experiment): an historical artefact (the Bayeaux Tapestry; Josephus's Antiguities, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, transcripts of the Nixon White House tapes) or the first record of experimental data (a data-base with seplies to questionnaires; readings from a mass spectrometer, amino acid analyzer, or high pressure liquid cromatograph).

A secondary source is the presented or published analysis of primary sources: a paper presented at a conference; an article in a peer-reviewed journal; a book published by an academic press. These sources do not just present data, but present original scholarly analysis or interpretation of data.

Misplaced Pages should not try to be a secondary source, as I have defined it. It is a tertiary source only, in which we provide accounts of secondary sources including debates among authors of secondary sources, or describe secondary sources that are themselves analyzing other secondary sources (for example, an article on the history or science).

I think this scheme works for other things. A movie is a primary source, a critical review is a secondary source; wikipedia is not a place for actual critical reviews of movies, but can report on published reviews.

People might quibble with the semantics -- I am not married to the terms "primary," "secondary," and "tertiary" source, or even the word source. But I do think we are dealing with three different forms of knowledge, and Misplaced Pages should limit itself to the third kind. That the policy currently allows for the second kind I think leads to confusion. Slrubenstein

I think I see what you mean, but on the other hand, I think this poses serious problems. First case that comes to mind, Ken Jennings, which was being updated daily as he won, based on the primary source of Jeopardy. Under this proposed idea, would we have had to wait for someone to report on the story and use their report? What about the daily Tour de France updates we do over the summer? I usually did those based on watching the broadcast on OLN. But then, I was also using the commentary on OLN to guide my sense of what was important, so... Snowspinner 18:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Before this gets any further, i'd like to quibble over terminology. Common usage in the context of discussing scientific references is that a primary source is the original publication of original research (typically a journal article) and secondary sources are synopses of multiple primary sources (typically a review article or a textbook). This site, the Berkeley library, says basically the same thing is true in the field of history. By these definitions wikipedia is a secondary source. I think your definition of primary source as a lab book or pile of questionnaires is not generally recognized. For example, if you look at an article I am in the middle of writing history of intersex surgery, I am trying to heavily reference it because it is a controversial topic. It is not original research, but it would certainly qualify as a secondary source article, because much of it is built on the primary sources rather on reviews and textbooks. Are you suggesting it should not be here or that all the referenced journal articles of original research should be called secondary sources? That wouldn't be standard academic usage. alteripse 19:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Snowspinner's comment -- I am not sure how to respond. As you say, what you put into Misplaced Pages is already "mediated" by a news outlet (which itself is getting raw data from somewhere else) -- this is my main point. But perhpas we have to make a distinction between "news" or "current events" articles and others. I certainly am referring primarily to academic/scholarly topics. I know it would be nice to have one policy that fits all, but given your comment, that may not be possible. Slrubenstein

Re: Alterprise's comment -- as I said, I am sure that the distinction I am making is important, but I am not married to the terminology. So if you want to introduce other terms, that is fine with me. Obviously in the proposal I made, I would consider the material you are working from "secondary sources" and your article in Misplaced Pages would certainly be legitimate. You claim that this is not current academic usage. Well, it is and it isn't. All articles in peer-reviewed history journals are secondary sources; the primary sources are the documents (serving as data) they draw on. I was just making an analogy to research in the natural sciences -- you can call published articles on original research "primary" sources if you want to (and I am not arguing against a convention) but the fact remains those "primary" sources are themselves based on earlier (think about what the word primary means) sources. You say that the lab book or pile of questionnaires is generally not recognized, and there is one reason for that: when it comes to experiments that are easily reproducable, no one really cares about the original lab data because people will simply try to reproduce the experiment several times and if it works, the claims of the researcher are established. But this is changing for a few reasons. First of all, some research requires very expensive equipment and is not easily reproducible. Second, there are cases where the research is called into question (e.g. the famous David Baltimore case) where people had to go back to the original note-books. Also, in the social sciences this distinction is very common. There are "data-bases" that constitute primary sources of information generally culled from questionaires and stored in spread-sheets, which different researchs may draw on to analyze in different ways to produce their articles. As is the case with history articles, many articles based on original research (which in this case involves applying different statistical operations to the database) in criminology, sociology, and political science are "secondary sources." Now, if you are saying that there are also sciences where these terms are not used, fine by me. All I ask is that you recognize the conceptual distinction. Call them what you will -- z, y, and z. The current policy allows wikipedia articles to be y or z, and I am saying the articles should only be z. (again, I am excluding news/current events articles). Alterpise, if you are only quibbling over terminology I ask you to help me come up with more acceptable terms. Slrubenstein

Incidentally, our very own article on tertiary sources (itself unsourced, tsk tsk :-) ) mentions that encyclopedias are often a combination of secondary and tertiary. We do want to prefer "tertiary source" normally, and relax it somewhat for recent pop culture and the like ("the bridge I'm seeing through my window right now is definitely gray"). Stan 20:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My quibble was only terminology. I acknowledge your schema makes perfect sense-- I just didn't think it was academic common usage-- the major publishing distinction is "original research" or "secondary material" when it comes to things like tenure, etc. Maybe it's just a matter of context. I didn't check the terms in wikipedia and I should have. I did check the first couple of google hits I got on googling "primary source research" to confirm someone else used the terms that way, and I wasn't imagining it. I quoted the first one above. I guess I'd call "original research records" what you are calling "primary source." I'll go with the group on this one, though. What does primary and secondary mean to rest of you? alteripse 23:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not yet sure what I think overall about this. I think it would help me to give specific examples of what has occurred on Misplaced Pages that you're trying to eliminate. Such a policy would need to clarify whether it only applies to academic-type topics, or how it would be applied to nonacademic topics.

It might have applied at Misplaced Pages:Divulging personal details. In summary, David Remahl found out the true identity of an online personality and a court case that person was involved in. At least within Misplaced Pages, "original research" seems to mean "scientific" or psuedo-scientific research. But the example at David Remahl is closer to journalism.

I think Slrubenstein’s basic point is that anything on Misplaced Pages should already be published elsewhere. Is that right?

I agree with Slrubenstein that the terminology is not the point, and also would use the terms essentially as Slrubenstein does, although perhaps more broadly. To me, a "primary source" is essentially the original, the point at which a person can't go any further back along that specific line, and it could vary in different contexts. Maurreen 09:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think using the terms primary, secondary and tertiary sources is helpful to this debate; we are just discussing what the terms mean. I think Slrubenstein needs to rephrase his proposal. I think he is saying that everything on Misplaced Pages ought to be from a legitimate publisher of books, journals, newspapers. This would exclude vanity press (unless the book becomes a best seller).

I would agree that whenever opinions or arguments are given in Misplaced Pages that they should be attributed to an authority or group. So I would support any suggestion to stengthen to the policy with regard to that.

However, where facts are concerned Misplaced Pages is often a primary source. When I write a synopsis to a book, I write it from memory; I don't consult an article somewhere and copy it. In fact I couldn't or it would be plagiarism. But that is fine because I am reporting or summarising the facts (or at least as well as I know them). The normal Wiki process handles this well, because my facts are then subject to unmerciless editing. Reporting current affairs, reporting sport events, etc. all require that approach; and I think that is fine. It is not original research, it is more equivalent to newspaper reporting, and that is the standard we should use. This is where the semi-policy of verifiability comes in, and why so many people are keen on WikiNews.

But when we deal with controversial topics, the nature of 'fact' can often becomes controversial. It is in that situation that it becomes necessary to properly reference and difficult fact and create a proper bibliography, i.e. it stops being optional and becomes essential. In that situation, newspaper reporter standards are no longer suitable; and academic standards become appropriate.

I also feel that academic standards should by definition be applied to all articles concerning academic disciplines. Controversial subjects may not be necessarily academic subjects, Scientology, 'Childlove' movement, etc. etc.  :ChrisG 11:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In response to ChrisG on academic disciplines I wonder if we are rapidly approaching the stage where we need some kind of over-arching plan for the scope of topics, and flagging up where there are gaps needing filling. Maybe identifying long-term writers who might be asked to do them. There should also be much more consistency in the way articles are presented. (Perhaps there is and I have so far missed it).

My experience as a contributor to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography may explain what I am getting at. The writing of articles was overseen by an office at Oxford, supported by a team of external specialist editors, who first devised a list of names for inclusion. Invitations for people to contribute were circulated by means of specialist journals. On the application form one was invited to nominate names one knew about and was willing to write up. The master list was amended to incorporate these additions. Once writing began, it had to be to a predetermined formula as to layout. The first para was in the form: Joe Bloggs, son of etc. Then follows the body of the article. It is always concluded with , etc. The completed articles were then edited at Oxford for style and consistency, sometimes adding in bits of info which had been found elsewhere. From my experience I had no problems with re-writes of my work, or POVish disputes with the editors.

The content of Misplaced Pages is entirely writer-generated (as is indeed the Web as a whole). This means that whole subject areas can either be left out, or are treated in a limited way. This lessens greatly Misplaced Pages' usefulness. I feel we ought to be trying to deal with this as a matter if some urgency.

I am concerned that when we get to the stage of a printed Misplaced Pages, the various conventions of presentation of articles by contributors will result in a very messy page for the reader. This does not matter so much in the on-line version because you only see one article at a time. Clearly a wholesale editing for consistence of presentation might be needed to make the finished book credible.

It would also be useful to be able to add notes to sources in the text of an article. I use the wording "See XYZ below" but it would be nice to be able to do it as a hyperlink. Do we have a page on the mechanics of composing an academic-standard article for Misplaced Pages, with notes on what is expected to be in it, and defining "no original research" ? Apwoolrich 16:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No original theories

Contemplating the previous discussion and the mailing list one, it occurs to me that the policy has the wrong title. It should be more tightly worded and be: No original theories.:ChrisG 12:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That title is more appropriate to what is on the page. Maurreen 13:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikisource is not the place for original research

Someone had included the statement that "Wikisource is" the place for original research. This is not true. When someone tries to do that at Wikisource, I suggest that they go to Wikibooks, and their material is eventually deleted. One of the continuing pre-requisites for material on Wikisource is that it has been previously published. (The only kind of material that regularly fails in that criterion is computer "source code", and if it were entirely my call I would soon get rid of that.) We do accept the reprinting of material that was itself original material, but will still ask for evidence of previous publication when that is not obvious. Eclecticology 20:32, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Refutations

I've added another criterion to the definition of original research: it purports to present a refutation of some other idea, often one presented previously in the same article. The underlying idea that is being refuted may very well be nonsense, but that does not justify the use of even more nonsense to prove it wrong. Often those with a scientific hostility to an idea have never taken the time to study it adequately. There is a big difference between the perfectly acceptable claim that an idea is not adequately proven, and claiming its disproof. Disproving these ideas may require research in excess of the time available for doing it. Eclecticology 21:14, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)