Wikipedia talk:No original research

Archives

The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.

Welcome to the discussion

Expert Editors

As a practical matter, the proposed rule change (which has been frozen in its changed form) recommends that every expert citing his own published work should check with the "People's Vanity Commissar" before doing so. This change is very much against the long-term wikipedia tradition and will seriously discourage experts from contributing. I favor the old guideline, which reads:

No, it does not. I defiy you to find the passage in the policy which insists that an expert citing his (or her) own published work "check with the "People's Vanity Commissar" before doing so." The current wording is simply a caution and a suggestion, there is NO prohibition, moreover the vanity guidelines are pretty vague and general too. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry for the obvious hyperbolie. The issue is not the guidelines, it is the potential abuse of the guidelines. I was the victim of an admin asserting the vanity guidelines against me because I had cited my own publications. This was in order to justify his deleting or reverting all my postings elsewhere on Wiki, apparently for crossing him. Difficult to beleive and totally against the rules, but it happened. He stopped when I cited the present rule allowing me to do this. His next step was to come over here and propose the rule be changed. Pproctor 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think we need to tread carefully here, that is all. There really should be no obstacle to experts adding citations to their own research when appropriate. I agree fully on this. However, there really have been abuses of the wiki nature of the project and vanity projects is an issue. I think we need to say something about it, and I think it needs to be short and clear. Perhaps the wording can be improved. I think the key is to keep it short and sweet: all appropriate sources should be cited, even if written by a wikipedia contributor. Expert contributors however should not however abuse the openness of Wikipedia, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or coopting existing articles to promote their own career and works. Isn´t this fair? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The traditional guideline listed below makes this essentially impossible. First, any citations of ones own work must be completely at arms length and subject to all the usual restrictions. So any "vanity" effects would be minor, at best. A legal maxim goes "The law does not concern itself with trivialities", except on Wikipedia, naturally.

Further, in the real world, the anonymity of Wikipedia makes this rule doubly impossible to enforce, except if some expert is dumb enough (as I was) to reveal his true identity. It is also against a fundamental policy to demand a person on Wikipedia to ID themthelves. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is nobody here that this rule would have the slightest effect on, except myself. I welcome further examples. Furtherance of personal feuds in not a very good reason for changing a basic Wikipedia guideline in a way that will only further discourage participation of those "skilled in the art". Pproctor 13:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• == Expert editors ==

- "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.

What does eveyone else think? Pproctor 23:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I think we should probably tackle one can'o'worms at a time. Jon Awbrey 01:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For comparison, the proposed change is to add the sentence: "However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes." I don't agree with Pproctor's characterization of the change, but nevertheless I think the suggestion that experts take the matter to the talk page is too strong. I suggest something like rewording it to "… it may be better in some cases to suggest …", or "Editors should refrain from adding references to their own publications if this is disputed, and argue their case on the talk page instead." -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that something would be helpful along those lines, primarily to ensure that what's being added really is relevant, as well as carefully written and cited. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The problems with changing the existing WS:NPOV policy are manifold. First, technical experts are not going to follow the changed guideline, should it go thru. Nor, with anonymous postings, etc. do they need too. That is, this change in the guidelines makes Wikipedia even more uninviting to the very people it needs (on technical issues anyway), without having much practical effect.

"Elitist"? There is an occasional need for technical expertise--I sure want a neurosurgeon to do my brain surgery. Second, even if experts were willing to vet their research publications with the vanity police, how is anyone to judge? Not even another person with the same expertise could make this kind of judgement about ideological purity. This is opening a can of worms. Remember, the guidelines are just that, guidelines.

Further, this change allows a lowest-common-denominator veto on a very subjective issue. Larry Sanger warned about this and how it damages the credibility of Wikipedia.

Technical experts put up with a lot here as it is. Having one's judgement questioned by anonymous strangers can be an interesting exercise, having one's motives questioned is quite another matter. One reason for the extreme variation in the quality of Wikipedia entries is that experts go where they are welcome and sheer away where they are not. Pproctor 17:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

One's motives are usually identifiable from one's behaviour. If one writes articles about all of one's coworkers, citing papers jointly written with them, but fails to contribute anything else, then that is suspect. If one further goes on to violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and insists that one deserves a Nobel Prize, WP:AGF is stretched to say the least. When one adds WP:SPAM to advertise one's baldness treatments...

Herein lies the problem; policy should be worded so that it is (1) not contradictory and so that (2) trolls cannot WP:LAWYER them. — Dunc|☺ 14:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is true that I have posted biographies of a couple of my mentors and coauthors on some decades-old papers, mostly done when I was a grad student or post-doc. E.g., one John McGinness is credited in a recent definitive history of the field (which I directly quote) with inventing the first organic electronic device, among other things. More recent examples include the color display in your phone. If that is not "notable", then nothing is. Yet Dunc in his malace and/or zeal put a delete petition on it.

I am currently a physician in private practice. I do not understand how posting a biography of the person who essentially invented the "plastic transistor" benefits me in any way, just because I am coauthor on some old papers with him from when I was a grad student. The original developer of the PC is now also a private physician-- would it also be "vanity" for him to post a biography of his computor geek buddies from the 1970's? That was then, this is now.

Similarly, it was attempting to post to the bio page of a more casual aquaintance from the '70's Raymond Damadian that got me into this tussle with Dunc. What I saw and heard from Dr. Damadian did not exactly correspond to Dunc's ideas. BTW, I before I get a WP:NOR cite, there is a limited license to use personal communications from the subject of a bio, which this was. I suppose Dunc will also now try to get this guideline changed. Pproctor 16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may continue Dunc's statement, … and so that (3) the policy does not have a chilling effect on worthwhile contributions. --Gerry Ashton 14:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pproctor, I know quite a number of expert (in the Wikipedia sense) editors in maths and physics, some of whom go by their real name, including myself. In my experience, they all understand that citing their own work will be viewed with suspicion. In my opinion, the extra sentence merely conveys that practice. Most experts are naturally reluctant to cite their own work and vanity guidelines are not necessary for them, but (again from my own experience) the extra scrutiny is unfortunately needed in some cases (this is not meant as a comment on your conflict with Dunc, which I haven't looked into). I don't know what prompted your comments of "elitism" or a "lowest-common-denominator veto".

The old issue. Who shall guard the guardians? You all are lucky you did not cross someone like Dunc. I edited on Wiki for years, without problems. I revealed my name, as do many. I also made the horrible mistake of tussling on a controversial issue with Dunc, who continually expresses his strong "antielitist" prejudices and who shows no particular tendency to adhere to the posted guidelines, even after an admonition. Such have have and will misuse this rule to pursue their own adjendas. Wikipedia is not antielitist, it is neutral, as the rules should be.

To summararize the situation again, after I abandoned the field and fled, Dunc vindicatively continued a dispute on one page Raymond Damadian by systematically deleting my postings on other pages. This was under the excuse that citing my own work, published in major journals, was a violation of the vanity guidelines. I had done this in good faith under the present rule, which Dunc now attempts to change. BTW, even had my posting not been "legal", the way he did this (no discussion on talk pages, etc.) is totally against the guidelines. The problem is, when you micromanage this way, you open the door to more stuff like this. This is because the issue, "vanity", is so totally subjective. And with out any possible gain, since the Wikipedia rules guarantee anonymity. Pproctor 15:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, as I said before, I'm not happy with the sentence you added:

"However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes."

What do you think about

"However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better in some cases for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes."

or

"However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind. Editors should refrain from adding references to their own publications if this is disputed, and argue their case on the talk page instead."

Same question for you, Slrubenstein. Of course, anybody is most welcome to propose other formulations.

PS added after I got an edit conflict with Gerry: Of course, and I consider some parts of the vanity guidelines as rather bad in this respect. But they do exist, they are obviously related to this section of WP:NOR, which makes it naturally to refer to them. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Like Jitse Niesen I am a self-identified academic so this issue relates to me too. I have no problem at all with the current wording, except that, well, it is a little wordy. What I wrote above still represents my best attempt to state the issue concisely: "all appropriate sources should be cited, even if written by a wikipedia contributor. Expert contributors however should not abuse the openness of Wikipedia, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or coopting existing articles to promote their own career and works." I think either iof Jitse´s two alternative suggestions would follow nicely from the preceeding. Anyway, in general I support what Jitse wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How about:

Expert editors may find it difficult to judge whether citing their own work would lead to overemphais of one subtopic within the article, and should seek advise on the talk page if in doubt.

--Gerry Ashton 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I somehow missed that the text that Slrubenstein repeats just above here was meant as a proposed text for the policy page. I actually prefer that text above my proposal. I also agree that the current text is rather wordy. For instance, it says three times that contributions of experts should be verifiable. So, perhaps we should use the occasion to cut down on words. Therefore

Current text (The conflict is about the last sentence which was recently added)

Proposed text

"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. However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes.

"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 these contributions are verifiable. All sources which are appropriate in view of Wikipedia's policies (like Reliable sources and Neutral point of view) should be cited, even if written by a Wikipedia contributor. Expert contributors however should not abuse the openness of Wikipedia, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or coopting existing articles to promote their own career and works.

I've no problems with Gerry's text, and I'm quite happy to have it instead of the last line in my proposed text, but what I like about Slrubenstein's text is that it gives a fair warning about the "vanity police". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest one more addition, which the above tacitly assumes, but should be restated, so there is no question. This is that:

• "The standard of proof shall be clear and convincing evidence. Editors disputing expert contributions must also adhere to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:vandalism,Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, Wikipedia:No original research,WK:AGF, and all other guidelines."

Pproctor 23:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the phrase "clear and convincing evidence" does not appear anywhere in any of the policies or guidelines mentioned by Pproctor. Adding a new standard for inclusion or removal (I'm not sure which Pproctor had in mind) that only applies to contributions from expert editors would be unwise. --Gerry Ashton 23:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: By way of cutting to the crux of the above discussion, I think that a couple of definitions might pave the way:

1. Elitist. Someone who has spent a couple of decades in the study of a given subject, and is so arrogant or deluded as to think that counts for a hill'o'beans in WP.
2. Expert. Someone who has spent a couple of years hanging about WP and uses administrative privileges as a tactical nucular ex cathedra dictum to push a personally favored POV.

JA: I hope that clears a few things up. Jon Awbrey 01:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Moral? Don't Be A Dictum. Jon Awbrey 01:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal: In place of "expert editors", we should title the section "Pointy headed-intellectual editors". Pproctor 02:56, 27 August 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)

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