User:COGDEN/testing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] No Original Research policy page: "use of sources" controversy

: '''Initiated by ''' ~~~ '''at''' ~~~~~

[edit] Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This is a controversy that has snowballed into something on the scale of the controversy in early 2007 about whether the WP:ATT policy page reflected a true Wikipedia policy.

Between about November 2006 and July 2007, and intermittently since then due to edit wars, the No Original research policy page included an intricate framework, using concepts borrowed from historiography, classifying reliable sources into primary, secondary, and tertiary categories. The policy description explicitly favored the "secondary" category as being most NOR-proof, and placed restrictions on the use of "primary" and "tertiary" types of sources, independent of the reliability critera.

The dispute arose in July and August 2007, when a number of editors asserted that this framework did not accurately reflect current Wikipedia practice and consensus. The ensuing months have included a flurry of comments (about 50% opposing the historiographic primary-secondary-tertiary model, with about 50% in favor of the model) essentially filling eight archive pages and counting,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] several edit wars involving numerous editors, followed by periods of protection. No consensus either for the old language or any proposed new language has been achieved. There have been innumerable straw polls, and a number of administrators on both sides have taken positions on the subject. Any efforts to remove the non-consensus language, or to place a tag on the page indicating the section is under discussion, have been stridently opposed by several editors. Some parties have been recalcitrant in their positions to the point that no effort at compromise has achieved consensus, or is likely to achieve consensus in the foreseeable future.

In early September 2007, there was a request for mediation; however, this request was rejected because many of the parties positively refused to participate. Despite several attempts to induce some sort of compromise, or to achieve some sort of modest consensus language, it is apparent that any move toward consensus will inevitably result in an edit war among numerous well-meaning editors who believe the controversial historiographic model is crucial to Wikipedia, and are not willing to work toward consensus or compromise, opposed by a large group of editors who believe the model is problematic and in opposition to Wikipedia traditions. A decision by the Arbitration Committee appears to be the only way to resolve the issue.

[edit] Statement by COGDEN

I. Issues
A. As described by the No Original Research policy page, should all reliably cited statements in an article be held to the same "bright-line" standards of non-originality regardless of whether they are cited to a primary, secondary, or tertiary source?
B. It is prudent to hinge the NOR policy on the fine distinctions between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, or are these distinctions too academic and ill-defined?
II. Brief Summary
A. The No Original Research policy as it relates to the use of sources is simple: Stick to the sources: don't make up things based on what you read in the sources. If a fact isn't in the sources, don't state it. If an opinion or interpretation of fact isn't in the sources, don't state it. The kind of source doesn't matter: the same rule applies whatever the source. Moreover, Wikipedia has a long history of using primary sources—in fact, most Wikipeda references today are arguably primary sources, particularly within featured articles. Editors frequently cite peer-reviewed journal articles, interviews, movies, novels, television shows, speeches, newspaper articles, and poetry. We encourage the use of such sources. No "different rule" need be followed in using primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. NOR has nothing to do with the type of source, as long as it's a reliable source.
B. After months of discussion on the talk page of WP:NOR, nobody has yet agreed on a consensus definition of primary source, nor has anybody agreed when, and under what circumstances, primary sources might be worse or better than secondary sources. To make matters worse, all sources can be both primary and secondary, depending on how they are used, and the tertiary category isn't even widely used or agreed upon even by historiographers. Therefore, the primary-secondary-tertiary source distinction is far too complicated and academic for meaningful use in the NOR policy page. The NOR policy doesn't need high-falutin historiographic terminology. Let's make it simple, and get back to Wikipedia's roots as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
III. Argument

Wikipedia's No Original Research policy originated in 2003-04, when founder Jimbo Wales spoke against certain editors who were trying to include their own crackpot physics and history theories into Wikipedia. (See, e.g., Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 6, 2004). From 2004 to late 2006, the NOR policy page restated Jimbo's sentiments, and the wide consensus around them, by simply prohibiting people from introducing new research, theories, or unpublished information into an article. It was a "bright-line" rule: if it's new it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If, on the other hand, it's verifiable, you are encouraged to cite it. But be sure to be true to the source. Don't interpret facts in a source unless the source itself— or a different source—interprets them.

Some time late in 2006, this simple principle was deleted from the WP:NOR policy page and replaced by a complicated framework derived from the field of historiography. Under the new framework, sources were divided into three categories. First, there were primary sources: the original source of a new idea or data (like novels, interviews, journal articles, newspapers, etc.). Primary sources were said to be bad, and so likely to lead to original research that they were to be proscribed, except in "rare cases". Secondary sources were said to be sources containing commentary, and were said to be good, and the type of source upon which editors were to "primarily rely". Tertiary sources, on the other hand, were bad, even though they were a type of secondary source.

In particular, between late 2006 and July 2007 (and intermittently thereafter, due to edit wars), the No Original research policy page included statements such as:

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source" (the problem: what if the primary source contains its own interpretation?);
"a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" (the problem: almost all primary sources do make analytic and explanatory statements); and
"most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources", and primary sources may be used only on "rare occasions" (the problem: most Wikipedia sources are primary sources: they aren't rare).[9]

In about July 2007, I and a few other editors pointed out that these kinds of statements were problematic, and did not accurately reflect current Wikipedia practice or consensus. Besides, we reasoned, there is a lot of debate about the meaning of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, and how can we possibly base a pillar Wikipedia policy on such distinctions? We suggested a simple alternative along the lines of the following:

Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways.
Within Wikipedia articles we will find statements of fact and statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion. It is important to cite the right sources to back those different types of statements. Statements of fact should be cited to reliable sources that clearly demonstrate that fact. Statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion should be cited to reliable sources that contain the same interpretation, analysis or conclusion.
Editors cannot include their own interpretations of previously-published facts, unless that interpretation is either 1) an obvious and non-controversial consequence of the facts or 2) can be attributed to a reliable source. Nor can editors expand on an author's interpretations of fact, unless that expanded interpretation is also found in a reliable source.
Sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not already present in the sources. In short, the policy of "No original research" requires that Wikipedia users stick to the sources.

Nobody has ever been able to point to any particular problem or inaccuracy with this language. Unlike the previous language, it's not at all controversial as a true description of Wikipedia consensus. Nevertheless, it has been impossible to make any change along these lines. Some editors are in denial that the early 2007 language lacks consensus. Others agree that it lacks consensus, but believe that a separate consensus is required to remove the non-consensus language and replace it with consensus language.

It's perfectly clear that the historiographic primary-secondary-tertiary model is not a Wikipedia consensus, and does not reflect widespread practice. First, there's not a consensus that the model should be used at all, or that it has obtained widespread use. Approximately half of the editors commenting on the NOR talk page oppose it. And there are very good reasons for opposing the historiographic model. First, a primary source is often the most reliable source of information on a subject. What's the best source for Michel Foucault's philosphical views on a given subject? Foucault's works—the primary sources—which is exactly what featured article Michel Foucault does. Who do you cite when you need to discuss the events surrounding the publication of Thomas Pynchon's novels? Why not cite newspaper articles—primary sources—as is done in featured article Thomas Pynchon? There are countless other examples where primary sources are welcome and encouraged in Wikipedia. Indeed, there's an argument that most Wikipedia sources are primary: we tend to cite the original source of information, theories, and expressions, if possible, rather than having them filtered through a secondary source.

Second, there is no consensus on what a "primary source" is, and how it's different from a "secondary source". This distinction is sometimes even controversial to historiographers. Indeed, all articles can be, and are, both primary and secondary sources. A commentary on a prior work, such as a biography of Joseph Smith, Jr., is a secondary source to the extent that it quotes or acts as a "conduit" for prior sources such as Smith's writings and published newspaper interviews about Smith. However, it's also a primary source for any new theories or new ways of looking at Smith's life, based on those primary sources, that nobody ever thought of before. Thus, in Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., a featured article, there is cited #Anderson, Richard Lloyd (1969), “Circumstantial Confirmation Of the first Vision Through Reminiscences”, BYU Studies 9 (3): 373–404, <https://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/PDFSRC/9.3Anderson.pdf> , a peer-reviewed article that discusses prior sources about Smith's first vision, but also puts forth new theories on the historicity of Smith's vision. Anderson is both a primary and a secondary source. Do we expect Joe Editor to know this, and be able to make the distinction while applying Wikipedia NOR policy?

In conclusion, the historiographic primary-secondary-tertiary model should be left to historiographers. The distinction is controversial, nobody knows what it means, and there have already been edit wars rippling through Wikipedia based on whether otherwise-reliable sources are sufficiently "secondary" to be included in Wikipedia. In fact, well-meaning editors have created a warning template to warn editors that primary sources, even though reliable, are supposedly "insufficient" for Wikipedia articles. The historiographic model is worst kind of instruction creep: creep that is controversial and that nobody understands. The Committee should bar editors from re-inserting the controversial model into the policy page.

[edit] Statement by {party 2}

[edit] Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)