Wikipedia talk:No original research: Difference between revisions
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) m dates of archives |
Good Point |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
This page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Feel free to update the page as needed, but make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus, before you make them. |
This page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Feel free to update the page as needed, but make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus, before you make them. |
||
'''Original Text''' |
'''Original Text''' |
||
| Line 20: | Line 21: | ||
The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder [[Jimbo Wales]], would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". |
The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder [[Jimbo Wales]], would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". |
||
'''Proposed text''' |
'''Proposed text''' |
||
| Line 26: | Line 28: | ||
'''Original research''' is prohibited when produced by editors of Wikipedia if it has not been published elsewhere. (This prohibition does not refer to research that is published or available elsewhere, although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate.) |
'''Original research''' is prohibited when produced by editors of Wikipedia if it has not been published elsewhere. (This prohibition does not refer to research that is published or available elsewhere, although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate.) |
||
In summary, if the facts, opinions, or arguments you want to include have not been published already by a credible or reputable publication, you're engaged in original research. |
In summary, if the facts, opinions, or arguments you want to include have not been published already by a credible or reputable publication, you're engaged in original research. |
||
'''Comment''' The proposed text is so very wide that 40% of wiki articles would have to be deleted. |
'''Comment''' The proposed text is so very wide that 40% of wiki articles would have to be deleted. |
||
| Line 33: | Line 35: | ||
:Not sure what you're getting at, Poorman. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 05:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC) |
:Not sure what you're getting at, Poorman. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 05:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC) |
||
* Good point, Slim. If you read the proposed text it, seems to say the same thing as the original text. Thus keeping the original text should not upset anyone.(Slim chance!)No pun intended --[[User:Poorman|Poorman]] 06:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:03, 6 September 2005
 | This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Stvilia, B. et al. Information Quality Discussions in Wikipedia. University of Illinois U-C. |
- Wikipedia:No original research (draft rewrite)
- Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite)
- Wikipedia talk:No original research (archive 1) - January 16–December 13, 2004
- Wikipedia talk:No original research/archive2 - January 4–August 6, 2005
- Wikipedia talk:No original research/archive3 - April 17–August 30, 2005
IMPORTANT TEXT CHANGE THAT WOULD BRING IN A NEW POLICY ON WHAT IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH
This page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Feel free to update the page as needed, but make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus, before you make them.
Original Text
Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).
The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
Proposed text
Original research refers to theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any unpublished interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
Original research is prohibited when produced by editors of Wikipedia if it has not been published elsewhere. (This prohibition does not refer to research that is published or available elsewhere, although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate.) In summary, if the facts, opinions, or arguments you want to include have not been published already by a credible or reputable publication, you're engaged in original research.
Comment The proposed text is so very wide that 40% of wiki articles would have to be deleted.
- Vfd could and would placed on many many articles.--Poorman 05:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're getting at, Poorman. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Good point, Slim. If you read the proposed text it, seems to say the same thing as the original text. Thus keeping the original text should not upset anyone.(Slim chance!)No pun intended --Poorman 06:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)