User:Llywrch/These are not original research

Note: This is my original essay which was rewritten -- against my wishes -- into the present essay of this name. I post here as a record of my contribution to this policy.

This is a description of the nature of a select few contributions that have been made to Wikipedia which some might consider falls under the prohibition about original research -- and although they involve some degree of analysis, are believed to be not covered by this rule.

Not all analysis is necessarily original research, and some forms can safely and obviously be excluded from this prohibition. Further, in some of the cases below it is not believed that they directly require a citation -- as long as the information that they analyze is properly sourced. Additionally, verification tells us that uncontroversial and commonly accepted derivations or facts do not require citation.

This essay is offered as a contribution the ongoing discussion -- and as an attempt to help avoid Wikilawyering. For if we have a consensus on what this prohibition is meant to cover, as well as what it was not meant to cover, then we do not need worry about quibbles over the precise wording.

Obvious deductions

 * Any simple mathematical calculation that the reader can be expected to quickly reproduce for her/himself. For example, if given the population and the size of a specific area, then the population density of that area may be included. More complex calculations, for instance involving statistics algebra or calculus, should not be attempted because they require skills that not all readers possess, and involve a large number of steps that introduce the possibility of errors.
 * Simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should, again, not be included under this case because they require skills that not all readers possess, and involve a large number of steps that introduce the possibility of errors.

Typos and proofing errors
Many sources contain typographical and proofing errors, some more than others. Claiming tendentiously that such a mistake represents the author's intent is often dishonest. The proper way to deal with them is:


 * If at all possible, if the mistake is trivial (spelling, grammar) avoid the problem by paraphrasing the source. People who verify the citation will read it in context, and see that it is obviously an error in the printing.
 * If the text must be quoted, either silently correct the typo, or mark it with a sic and explain what the text should read. The best choice between these two options should be determined in Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

Caveats about expert material
Experts are human, and can publish statements that are contradicted by known facts, or otherwise erroneous. The reasons for this contradiction vary: intentional bias, a failing of editorial oversight, or lack of context. Sometimes the statements of experts can become obsolete or inaccurate in light of the normal process of peer-review and advancement in their field.

Wikipedians are not mere copyists, bound to repeat simple statements absent context or without thought. The intent of the NPOV is presenting the dialogue that is apparent in the body of reliable references, not to mechanically include every possible opinion about the subject regardless of its plausibility. We have a responsibility to present an accurate and factual overview of the topic addressed in the article. This may include indicating when a given authority may be wrong and presenting contradicting claims using proper weighting.

A solution is to accurately & honestly cite the authority, while also citing the conflicting fact(s); point to the problem, but do not attempt to solve it with your own arguments. Stating emphatically that because the authority is wrong because of these facts is original research, because you are introducing a novel interpretation of the facts. This caveat may done by way of a footnote, or a short statement appropriately placed in the article. Following each statement with an elaborate response that disrupts the flow of the article should be avoided; if the authority needs to be qualified on several points, the reliability of that expert or particular work may be questionable. It may also be appropriate to create a separate section, or another article, for these qualifications -- with the appropriate citations, of course. In that case, this is not presenting original research, but deeping Wikipedia's coverage of the discussion on this subject.

Original Translations
Text from another language that has no translation into English available may be newly translated. Any original translations should be faithful, to the point of literalness; if interpretation is called for, it should be explicitly in parenthetical notes. The credit should be (tr:WP). The translation must, of course, be editable. Fair use caveats apply as they do for other quoted texts; note that while the original text may be public domain, translations of it may be copyrighted.