User:Coastside/sandbox/space

First, I want to point out that there is a Wikipedia No Original Research Notice Board, which might be a suitable venue to solicit input on this question. However, please don't take the topic there while the issue is open here on the DRN. I will try to facilitate a resolution as a third party volunteer.

Second, sorry this is a long note. To paraphrase Twain, I didn't have time to make it shorter. It's tricky issue, and I want to be helpful.

It's clear from reviewing the talk page discussion that the participants are aware of the no-original-research policy guidelines. I saw, for example, reference to WP:CALC regarding use of routine calculations.

I'd like to draw attention to a more detailed policy discussion of derivations and restatements of scientific and mathematical content which is also applicable and may be helpful. As explained there, illustrative examples and restatements are often necessary. In fact, they are encouraged "provided that a reader who reads and understands the references can easily see how the material in the Wikipedia article can be inferred".

Examples include the article on Methane clathrate which includes an created and uploaded by a Wikipedia user and a footnote with a detailed calculation showing the derivation of a statement in the lead.

It's also important to remember that users are encouraged to upload original illustrations because copyright laws generally limit the number of images available in Wikipedia.

Regarding the graphs in the article on the space elevator, my 3rd-party opinion is that attempting to add illustrative material, including original images and graphs, to the Physics section of the article is rather laudable. This article is interesting even to the non-scientist, and the science is interesting even to the non-mathematician. Illustrations may help make a section that is full of mathematical formulae somewhat accessible to the less scientific reader who is nonetheless interested in the topic.

Having said that, the question of whether original graphs and images contain "original research" is something that needs careful consideration. Ultimately, this must be determined by consensus of the editors. It's clear here that consensus has not yet been reached on that point.

Nevertheless, I encourage the participants to work toward a consensus about how an enthusiastic editor might be able to create original graphs or illustrations that improve the article without violating principles of WP:NOR. What I see in the talk page discussion is all too common with such issues. The participants are focused too much on whether an edit has been reverted and whether editors' motivations are valid, behavior appropriate, etc. When this happens, the participants miss out on an opportunity to collaborate and work together to make the article better. In this case, I see several smart people, including an enthusiastic editor who wants to make the article more accessible to the reader. There is no reason not to work together and build a consensus about improving the Physics section of this article with graphical illustrations. The key is not to focus on particular edits and revisions. The key is to focus on the ultimate goal of improving the article, and to recognize the power of collaboration and consensus-building. Working toward that goal and achieving it may be more rewarding than you expect. Coastside (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)