Wikipediocracy

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:56 am**

Thought maybe it's about time for a serious discussion about WP:NOR.

It makes sense to stop people putting their hare-brained theories on WP for the world to see. There are plenty of people who would if they could, and no doubt many people do and get away with it. But if more people did it, WP would be even more rubbish than it is already. But is WP:NOR necessary or even useful for this?

Now WP:NOR isnt about what normal people call original research, right? If I burrow around in old local newspapers and dusty public records and find things that aren't on the Internet I'd call that original research. But I could put that in WP with chapter and verse and I'd pass WP:V and probably WP:RS unless some dickface accuses me of using primary sources. So no breach of WP:NOR there.

If I blag my way into a laboratory and do some experiments without blowing the place up, and make a discovery, to be sure that's original research. But if I put my findings on WP there's no need to invoke WP:NOR because I'd fail WP:V. And if I get them published in a local rag ("Local genius hailed for scientific breakthrough") then although it's original research I have a source. No doubt WP:COI if I add it myself (though how would anyone know it's me?), but no WP:NOR problem.

Then again suppose I take a lot of sourced facts and come to a logical conclusion that can't be sourced in the exact wording I use. Do we need WP:NOR then? No, there's immediately a clusterfuck on the talk page and up comes WP:SYNTH!

So what in hell violates WP:NOR but not WP:V or WP:SYNTH?

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:28 pm**

WP has all of NPOV V SYNTH NOR precisely because it is written by cranks and idiots. The thing is still written by cranks and idiots and all the policy have actually done is increased the dramah, and decreased the readibility of the articles.

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:28 pm**

Retrospect wrote:So what in hell violates WP:NOR but not WP:V or WP:SYNTH?

The policy was invented in a different sort of editing environment (before about 2006) where sourcing and citations were casual or even non-existent. Wikipedia writers didn't want to be bothered citing "common knowledge", but the internet being full of crazies necessarily attracted a certain number of them who wrote their own "common knowledge" in a range of articles. This is when "No Original Research!" became a motto: it was used as an easy excuse to remove the content that was way out on a limb. At the time, the "good" writers were violating WP:V and WP:SYNTH as a matter of course. You can still find some of this older troop contributing to obscure science and mathematics articles.

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:41 pm**

Retrospect wrote:Thought maybe it's about time for a serious discussion about WP:NOR.

It makes sense to stop people putting their hare-brained theories on WP for the world to see. There are plenty of people who would if they could, and no doubt many people do and get away with it. But if more people did it, WP would be even more rubbish than it is already. But is WP:NOR necessary or even useful for this?

Now WP:NOR isnt about what normal people call original research, right? If I burrow around in old local newspapers and dusty public records and find things that aren't on the Internet I'd call that original research. But I could put that in WP with chapter and verse and I'd pass WP:V and probably WP:RS unless some dickface accuses me of using primary sources. So no breach of WP:NOR there.

If I blag my way into a laboratory and do some experiments without blowing the place up, and make a discovery, to be sure that's original research. But if I put my findings on WP there's no need to invoke WP:NOR because I'd fail WP:V. And if I get them published in a local rag ("Local genius hailed for scientific breakthrough") then although it's original research I have a source. No doubt WP:COI if I add it myself (though how would anyone know it's me?), but no WP:NOR problem.

Then again suppose I take a lot of sourced facts and come to a logical conclusion that can't be sourced in the exact wording I use. Do we need WP:NOR then? No, there's immediately a clusterfuck on the talk page and up comes WP:SYNTH!

So what in hell violates WP:NOR but not WP:V or WP:SYNTH?

WP:NOR is a subset of WP:V. WP:SYNTH is a type of WP:NOR.

Btw, I like this policy (I'd be one of the dickfaces calling you on using primary sources). There's still a lot of crazies out there and the benefits of being able to remove crazy stuff outweigh the costs imposed on the editors of actually having to find a citation. Of course the policy gets gamed like any other and most of the time true enforcement of it is practically non existent.

Really, the only way that content policies like NPOV, NOR, and V get enforced is by "smart edit warring". But there's nothing to say that the person who is following them is the one that will get tired last, so at best enforcement is about 50/50.

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:57 pm**

Jon Awbrey has studied this extensively. Seehere.

This is the best summary of the history of this policy that I've seen.

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:33 pm**

The "no original research" policy was a direct response to an attempted invasion of Wikipedia by the Timecube guy. The sole reason it exists was to give a "neutral" reason why Timecube's novel theories of spacetime do not deserve mention in Wikipedia. Instead of doing what they should of done, which is to declare that Timecube is completely full of shit, as anyone with half a brain can see (which would be a "bill of attainder" passing judgment on Timecube, which is "bad"), they instead created a "neutral rule" that could then be "dispassionately" applied to exclude Timecube from getting column inches in Wikipedia. Instead of having to tell Timecube that he's a loon and could he please go away, they could go to Timecube and say "So sorry, but your very interesting theories simply don't meet our very reasonable requirements for publication in our encyclopedia".

Study this closely. It reveals several very interesting, and deep-set, points about Wikipedia's culture.

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:58 pm**

The points being, if you don't like what someone is doing, invent/modify a rule and accuse them of breaking it.

Posted: **Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:33 am**

Randy from Boise wrote:NOR is basically a slogan to get newcomers up to speed.

EVERY article on Wikipedia includes some facts and not others — which is research — and is (supposedly) not copied verbatim from some published source — which is original.

So-called "synthesis" is a prohibition understood by maybe 15% of WP regulars and less than 1% of WP users as a whole. Out of about 2500 AfD debates that I have participated in, I think it was the decisive cause for deletion maybe twice. That purported principle could easily be dumpstered.

The operating principles that matter are Verifiability and Neutral Point of View.

RfB

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:25 am**

JzG (Guy Chapman), infamous for saying there were no female opera composers because there were none on his iPod, is conducting some original research again. This time, he's targeting my own website, MyWikiBiz (T-H-L). He says that MyWikiBiz's current status is "Unknown", even though no reliable source has said that its status is anything but active, and it is (in fact) active. He says that "As of April 2014, the site is only intermittently available and does not appear to be updated". Granted, the site was down between April 1st and 8th, but since then, the site has registered 99.87% uptime. The site has been "updated" about 7 of the past 9 days.

I wish someone would unwind JzG's speculative and hasty original research.

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:57 am**

I agree there are a lot of hair brained theories with original research submitted but I also think the NOR rules on Wikipedia are too extreme. For example, I completely agree that we shouldn't be able to post our hypothosis about the Pixar theory or how the blue meth in Breaking bad is what caused the Zombie apocalypse in Walking dead, but sometimes using source documents as a source material in articles isn't a bad thing.

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:27 am**

What about those "On the next match day" scenarios found in football (as in the beautiful game) tournaments?

Those are one of the best part about articles on ongoing football tournaments.

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2014 11:39 am**

Kumioko wrote:I agree there are a lot of hair brained theories with original research submitted but I also think the NOR rules on Wikipedia are too extreme. For example, I completely agree that we shouldn't be able to post our hypothosis about the Pixar theory or how the blue meth in Breaking bad is what caused the Zombie apocalypse in Walking dead, but sometimes using source documents as a source material in articles isn't a bad thing.

Using primary sources isn't prohibited by WP:NOR, provided that the assertion you are making based on them is crystal clear. If you cite someone's autobiography, you can say "John Smith in his autobiography says so and so". Of course, people can then say "However, Jane Doe says something different" and leave the reader to wonder why.

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:07 pm**

A example of prohibited OR alone is Cmhiraeth making up organism descriptions from photographs.

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:23 pm**

Nonetheless, MyWikiBiz (T-H-L) is currently quite incorrect, thanks to original research that JzG shoehorned into the article to make the subject look less operational than it actually is.

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:10 pm**

thekohser wrote:Nonetheless, MyWikiBiz (T-H-L) is currently quite incorrect, thanks to original research that JzG shoehorned into the article to make the subject look less operational than it actually is.

Revenge BLPs and revenge targetting companies is popular on en.Wikipedia.

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:02 pm**

Poetlister wrote:
Kumioko wrote:I agree there are a lot of hair brained theories with original research submitted but I also think the NOR rules on Wikipedia are too extreme. For example, I completely agree that we shouldn't be able to post our hypothosis about the Pixar theory or how the blue meth in Breaking bad is what caused the Zombie apocalypse in Walking dead, but sometimes using source documents as a source material in articles isn't a bad thing.
Using primary sources isn't prohibited by WP:NOR, provided that the assertion you are making based on them is crystal clear. If you cite someone's autobiography, you can say "John Smith in his autobiography says so and so". Of course, people can then say "However, Jane Doe says something different" and leave the reader to wonder why.

Although that is partially true, I have gotten into several discussions with editors about their views on whether its allowed. Another example is getting certain service record documents from the National archives (like Medal citations or enlistments). Some argue that are not allowed because they constitute original research. I contend its no different than using a Government provided image. The document itself isn't original research, if I were to try and recreate a document that had been distroyed though from various sources, that I would agree, would constitute original research.

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:06 pm**

enwikibadscience wrote:
thekohser wrote:Nonetheless, MyWikiBiz (T-H-L) is currently quite incorrect, thanks to original research that JzG shoehorned into the article to make the subject look less operational than it actually is.
Revenge BLPs and revenge targetting companies is popular on en.Wikipedia.

So much so that there is an entire article on it: Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia (T-H-L) with some really good examples.

Posted: **Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:02 am**

Jimbo always tells corporations that if they have any problems with the facts in an article, just use the Talk page, and someone will carefully review the facts. Jimbo says he's never seen a company that followed these rules who came away dissatisfied with the process.

Just in case anyone forgot how Wikipedia actually works, here is a refresher course.

Posted: **Fri Apr 25, 2014 7:02 pm**

Kumioko wrote:Some argue that are not allowed because they constitute original research. I contend its no different than using a Government provided image.

Somehow, images and their captions manage to be beyond the reaches of WP:NOR and WP:V.

Posted: **Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:55 am**

Well, thanks to OTRS, Guy Chapman lost this battle. But he still doesn't see that he did anything wrong. Apparently, according to JzG, the Wikipedia articles about banned users or their companies can and should be as wrong as Wikipedia pleases, violating WP:BLP as much as they wish, with no on-wiki option for the banned user to suggest improvements!

Posted: **Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:42 pm**

I see this as "original research":

JPMorgan Chase footprint 2010-03

What was the source of the geo-data?

Which buildings in the JPMorgan Chase holding company do the dots represent?

Why are Chase Bank ATMs ignored? (E.g., there are dozens of Chase Bank ATMs in Kansas.)

Is this version "03" of a file, or is it the Chase footprint back in time from 2010 to 2003?

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2014 2:53 pm**

thekohser wrote: Is this version "03" of a file, or is it the Chase footprint back in time from 2010 to 2003?

It probably means March 2010. I agree with all your other points.

Posted: **Mon May 05, 2014 1:28 am**

Hex wrote:
thekohser wrote: Is this version "03" of a file, or is it the Chase footprint back in time from 2010 to 2003?
It probably means March 2010. I agree with all your other points.

You notice how there's no dot in Wilmington, Delaware? Even though Chase Card Services is headquartered at the corner of 4th and Walnut, taking up a 15-storey building, since at least 2007... no dot on Wikipedia's map o' original research. Will anyone take down the map? Is it more important for Wikipedia to be accurate, or to allow editors to showcase their cool-looking but erroneous maps?

Posted: **Mon May 05, 2014 2:45 am**

thekohser wrote:Even though Chase Card Services is headquartered at the corner of 4th and Walnut, taking up a 15-storey building, since at least 2007... no dot on Wikipedia's map o' original research.

Most likely it's only a map of retail banking branch locations. I doubt they have dots for their giant data centers either, since JPMC doesn't exactly publicize their locations.

Posted: **Mon May 05, 2014 2:19 pm**

Retrospect wrote: ...what in hell violates WP:NOR but not WP:V or WP:SYNTH?

Volunteer Marek wrote:WP:NOR is a subset of WP:V. WP:SYNTH is a type of WP:NOR.

WP:ATT was a 2007 attempt to merge WP:V and WP:NOR. It was worked on for over five months by more than 300 editors, but fell at this request for comment involving 880 editors.

Posted: **Tue May 06, 2014 6:46 pm**

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Retrospect wrote: ...what in hell violates WP:NOR but not WP:V or WP:SYNTH?
Volunteer Marek wrote:WP:NOR is a subset of WP:V. WP:SYNTH is a type of WP:NOR.
WP:ATT was a 2007 attempt to merge WP:V and WP:NOR. It was worked on for over five months by more than 300 editors, but fell at this request for comment involving 880 editors.

WP:ATT was an attempt by SlimVirgin to rig things in her favour.

Wikipediocracy

Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?

Re: Is WP:NOR needed to prohibit original research?