Wikipedia talk:No original research/history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is a chronological log of significant changes to WP:NOR with additional description. It is intended to describe the history and evolution of the policy over time, to better facilitate discussions and references to old versions. It may be viewed as a concise and selective index to the edit history of WP:NOR and NOR talk.

This page is currently (12/22) still in draft mode.

Contents

[edit] Page created (2003)

  • 2003/12/21 Page created by Tarquin (first edit; diff; minor edit; stable thru 2/6
  • 20034/2/7 - Scientific theory & crackpot info added (diff)
  • 2004/2/13 Edits by Reddi introduce "Wikipedia is not a primary source" (diff)
  • 2004/2/13-2004/9/14 - Minor edits ([1])
  • 2004/9/14 Minor changes (diff)
  • 2004/9/22 Chalst added "what is research" section (url, diff) diff)
  • 2004/10/07 UninvitedCompany added "official policy category" (diff)
  • 2005/1/6 Fleshing out examples & cleaning up text diff)
  • 2005/2/17 Insertion & removal of paragraph about adding facts discoverable by an ordinary person (diff)

[edit] March 2005 revisions

  • 2005/3/8 Significant revision (url) begun with edits by Slrubenstein (diff) based on "draft revision". Further edits thru 3/10 follow (diff 2/17-3/10) (Slrubenstein, SlimVirgin, Paul August, ChrisG). Edits include
    • Addition of statement, ""Original research" refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia; it does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere."
    • Definition of "original research" as including data and "any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis"
    • "Original research ... produces primary or secondary sources"; defines primary & secondary
    • Defines articles that would acceptably be based entirely on primary sources (e.g., apple pie or Current events)
    • Articles usually use both PS & SS; PS should be have been published or made available; syntheses should come from SS that are available.
    • Viewpoint controversies should be addressed
    • proposing ideas is OR; content is acceptable if it has "become a permanent feature of the public landscape", e.g., "accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal" or "have become newsworthy ... have been independently reported in newspapers or news stories"
    • Publish your great ideas elsewhere first
    • List of examples for sorts of things that are okay
    • How to handle theories
    • Describing "Cite sources" policy
    • Describing what counts as a reputable publication
    • Describing "Verifiability"
    • Describing "NPOV"
    • Origins - Jimbo Wales quotes

[edit] Rest of 2005

  • 3/10 - 6/2/2005 (diff) - More rewriting of primary source/secondary source; added note about talk pages
  • 6/2 - 9/29/2005 - significant edits throughout policy (diff) - need description & possibly breakdown
  • 9/29-12/31/2005 - significant edits including addition of "original images" section (diff) - need description & possibly breakdown
  • 12/31/2005 - 1/5/2006 - minor edits (diff 12/31-1/5; diff 1/5-1/5)* 1/5/2006 - 3/31/2006 - (diff)
    • added nutshell ("Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas.");
    • copy-editing & futzing with Primary/Secondary section
    • re-write of motivation section ("why do we exclude original research");
    • changes "it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source." to "it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"

[edit] April 2006-December 2007

This section includes a lot of policy churn; these are just very short sign-post diffs but do not mark particularly significant changes, yet.

  • April significant revisions (diff)
  • May - Aug 2006 revisions; significant; edit-warring; led to page protection (diff)
  • 8/23-9/18 edits (diff 8/23-9/18 diff 9/18)
  • 9/18-12/31/2006 edits (diff)
  • 12/31/2006 - 3/28/2007 - more edits, more page protection, disputes over page protection - diff 12/31/2006-3/31/2007 * 3/28 - 8/23/2007 - 190 more edits & more disputes (diff)
  • 8/23 protected again (diff)
  • 8/23 - 9/30; protection on again, off again; 79 edits (diff)
  • 9/30-12/22 - 322 edits (diff) - more edits wars over PSTS; edits on "Sources"; removal of "Origins" and "Other options" sections; significant editing of basic statement & nutshell

[edit] Restatement of "Primary source" (PSTS) history

Description by Blueboar taken from Talk:NOR (url):

I think part of the problem is that the section has taken on a life of its own. If you go through the history, it started when the phrase: "Wikipeida is not a primary source" was added. Soon afterwards, a (very short) definition was added to explain what a "primary source" was... followed by a definition of "secondary source" to show what Wikipedia should be. As time went on, the definitions became longer and longer. What started as a short sentence in the lead, soon became a section in its own right. Somewhere along the line, however, the phrase that started it all got lost. Someone cut the line "Wikipedia is not a primary source". From that moment on, we lost the entire reason why we were explaining the terms primary and secondary in the context of this policy.
However, the text remained useful as a policy statement in other ways. It was handy to have what amounted to a "primary sources are bad (not forbidden, but strongly cautioned against)" statement in a core policy... even if it did not directly relate to the policy itself. So, bit by bit, the definition wording was shifted from talking about what Wikipedia should not be, to talking about what types of sources we should use. Unfortunately, we now are at the state where the section is useful, but is so divorced from its original intent that people are wondering why it is there in the first place and no longer think it belongs in the policy.
Thus we are faced with several options... do we 1) break off a useful, but unrelated, policy statement into a new policy or guideline? 2) rework the discussion of primary and secondary sources so that it is referring to Wikipedia itself and not the sources we are using within wikipedia (ie return to the original intent of including the definitions)? 3) a combination of both?... or 4) none of the above. Personally, I would opt for number 3. I think PSTS should be policy... I just don't see it as being part of this policy. However, If we return to the concept of "Wikipedia should not be a primary source" then I can see a reworded section to explain what that means. Blueboar (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)