User talk:Wbfergus/Sandbox/NOR

Editable sample policy page
As an attempt to allow some compromise amongst the various parties, I've taken a very rough stab at creating a new version of the current policy page. All of the discussion on this and the archived pages is very interesting and many people have made good points for their respective arguments, but very few have actually attempted to create a "piece of text" that others could actually see, comment on, or change/expand on. There has been numerous conversations on various people's talk pages about this subject, some trying to build something reasonable for use, but it's still just buried on their talk pages for only a few to see.

I started with a copy of the current policy, then as I changed something, I either struck it out (for deletions) or wrapped it in a different color font (for additions). I also included one comment within the "Synthesis" section, though that was about the only section I did nothing to.

A lot of what I did was minor (in my opinion), as most of the changes were to strike out current content and replace it with the synopsis from the applicable page (like the sources). My reasoning for those changes is that this policy should not try to define or refine subjects that either are, or should be, defined elsewhere. This is a policy page for "No original research", not a page that is a definition of "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position", though a brief description may be worthy of inclusion on the page (like several other sections).

Feel free to edit the page. Maybe if people see some sample text, they can more easily reach some agreement, or at least narrow down points of contention to a few areas. The page is at Sample NOR Policy. wbfergus 14:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a reason to not have a talk page for it? I'd like to make some observations but I don't want to force them into your editable page and I really don't want to do anything that might start an edit war there. --Minasbeede 15:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and start on discussion on that page if you think it's worth it. I don't have any problem with it. wbfergus 15:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I got to thinking that I should also say I would much prefer for many of the sections to simply be condensed as much as possible, with those sections having their own page (whether policy or guidline). Especially in things like "Sources", when there is a 'problem' with those sections or definitions, it doesn't clutter up this "Policy". It also 'should' lead to better (and probably lengthier) descriptions and examples on those pages, without 'cluttering up' the NOR Policy. wbfergus 15:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you want to move that text to Proposal to replace No Original Research, wich was created by SLrunbinstein for this purpose. Note that in my experience, anything other than small changes to policy, is very difficult to do in the project at its current state. Just remember the fracas around WP:ATT earlier this year, in which hundreds of editors were involved over 6 months and still did not make it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jossi. Your link works, the other one just went to a "create new page". I'll go ahead and move (actually copy) it over there instead. I don't think I'm substantially changing anything by watering it down or anything like that. It seems like the most contentious issues are points in the policy that either are or should be in their own "pages", like the "Sources" are. Simply acknowledging they exist and refering people to those pages keeps thos issues out of the policy. If there's an issuse with those pages, whether a complete rewrite or whatever, let it happen there, not here. That's not a NOR issue. wbfergus 15:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As a tentative and possibly useful measure why not do the same for "Wikipedia:Reliable Sources"? Try to make that article cover all that needs to be covered about sources so that people can see what it would be like for the source discussions to be strictly within the guideline and the policy be only policy, although the policy surely could explicitly refer to or include the parts of "Reasonable Sources" that do what it is that the source type sections in "Wikipedia:NOR" are curently meant to do. --Minasbeede 16:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That does sound useful, but I'm not sure if I'm up to it yet. Just what I did this morning took me almost 4 hours, little as it is (bad thing about ADHD). wbfergus 16:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Check also Vassyana's draft on the subject of sources at: User:Vassyana/Sources_proposal. There is good stuff there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I moved everything back to the original location (my sandbox) after further clarification from Slrubenstein. That other page is for those who believe that there are forms of original research that should be allowed on Wikipedia. wbfergus 16:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did the desire to change the policy come from? Why don't we just go back to an earlier version of the policy? The proposed change that eliminates the example about the journalist writing about a traffic accident seems to me to be instruction creep. --Coppertwig 22:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I'd like to know, too. Was it _really_ that pressing to clarify what a "primary source" was? Squidfryerchef 23:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I happen to agree with Coppertwig in this instance, any editor has a right to propose a new policy or propose revising a policy. We should express our agreement or disagreement when an actual proposal is presented.


 * I think much of the talk in this section is unnecessary. I would ask Fergus to sum it up in a short paragraph (what his intentions are, with a link to his sandbox page and an invitation for anyone interested to work with him there) and then remove the rest of the talk in this section to that proposal's talk page. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested Summation
I first came here trying to seek clarification on questions I had, and quickly got caught up in this "mess". I joined this discussion evidently after an edit war had started because of changes made to the policy page, as my second day here trying to read and understand this, the policy page was protected. As I was trying to understand what the policy was and how to interpret it, I quickly became confused, partly due to the terms (ala the "Sources" discussions), the attempt to create definitions of terms that had subtle differences from the linked pages with full-blown explanations of those terms with examples, and there was at least inconsistency on the policy page itself ("explanatory" in one section, but missing in another). So, as a newbie to all this, the policy was very confusing to me, and as I got involved in the discussion page, it appeared others either were as well, or were advocating for "some" change.

My comments about this, copied from the NOR talk page
As an attempt to allow some compromise amongst the various parties, I've taken a very rough stab at creating a new version of the current policy page. All of the discussion on this and the archived pages is very interesting and many people have made good points for their respective arguments, but very few have actually attempted to create a "piece of text" that others could actually see, comment on, or change/expand on. There has been numerous conversations on various people's talk pages about this subject, some trying to build something reasonable for use, but it's still just buried on their talk pages for only a few to see.

I started with a copy of the current policy, then as I changed something, I either struck it out (for deletions) or wrapped it in a different color font (for additions). I also included one comment within the "Synthesis" section, though that was about the only section I did nothing to.

A lot of what I did was minor (in my opinion), as most of the changes were to strike out current content and replace it with the synopsis from the applicable page (like the sources). My reasoning for those changes is that this policy should not try to define or refine subjects that either are, or should be, defined elsewhere. This is a policy page for "No original research", not a page that is a definition of "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position", though a brief description may be worthy of inclusion on the page (like several other sections).

Feel free to edit the page. Maybe if people see some sample text, they can more easily reach some agreement, or at least narrow down points of contention to a few areas.

I should also say I would much prefer for many of the sections to simply be condensed as much as possible, with those sections having their own page (whether policy or guidline). Especially in things like "Sources", when there is a 'problem' with those sections or definitions, it doesn't clutter up this "Policy". It also 'should' lead to better (and probably lengthier) descriptions and examples on those pages, without 'cluttering up' the NOR Policy. I don't think I'm substantially changing anything by watering it down or anything like that. It seems like the most contentious issues are points in the policy that either are or should be in their own "pages", like the "Sources" are. Simply acknowledging they exist and refering people to those pages keeps thos issues out of the policy. If there's an issuse with those pages, whether a complete rewrite or whatever, let it happen there, not here. That's not a NOR issue. wbfergus 16:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wb, I set this up for people who think that some forms of original research ought to be allowed at Wikipedia. If you are committed to not allowing any forms of original research on Wikipedia, i ask you to create a different page.  As I think you tried to do before, the typical approach is to create a sub-page of your user page.  e.g. in double brackets user:wbfergus/NOR rewrite Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops. That wasn't very clear on the Talk:NOR page. Jacob Haller 16:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Another point I just thought of regarding the current policy (and hopefully I can articulate this well) is that many of the current "editors" on the talk page are well versed in what NOR "should" mean. However, since they have a much deeper knowledge of the subject than what I think the average layperson does, the current page works pretty well for them, but is really confusing to the new "reader" of the policy. This is another (albeit smaller) reason why I advocate many of the sections be mere links to other pages which are either official "Guidelines" or more detailed explanatory pages. This would keep the policy small and 'freer' of edit wars, lending more stability to the "Policy", while allowing in-depth explanations and examples of points that have proven to be contentious one way or another. wbfergus 17:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor changes
I took the liberty of uncapitalizing one word and, somewhat more doubtfully, removing a sentence fragment from the NPOV section. I'm not sure what the local standard for substantive edits is, or whether to just describe them in this talk page. Jacob Haller 16:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would remove all but the first two lines of the Sources section and replace those with whatever references are needed to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources.

Doing that would require that Wikipedia:Reliable Sources be made to say whatever it is that needs to be said about sources - but saying it there would be far simpler, since the intent isn't to make some of it imperative. Not that the policy can't still have the imperative, I'd just separate definitions from policy. That needs to be done. --Minasbeede 16:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the whole "Sources" section needs something done with it, one way or another. For now though (mainly because it was simple), I just copied the first paragraph or two from the existing pages for those three identified types of sources, right or wrong. If the definition of the various types of sources get rewritten and renamed, then so be it, I don't care if if it's done that way or the existing three definitions get "fixed" (for lack of a better word). They don't have any real bearing of NOR, just an acknowledgment that they exist and a link. wbfergus 17:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I really do like what you've done so far: it is forward motion. --Minasbeede 18:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have copied some of my text from the main talk page to your working draft. I actually think the source discussions belong elsewhere (probably in Wikipedia:Reliable Sources) but while the source-distinguishing wording is in the draft you've created my text seems to fit. --Minasbeede 11:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

definitions
I think it is a mistake to peg our definitons of primary and secondary sources to the articles, which are on how historians use them. Historians have a particular st of definitions that fit their needs. How we define primary and secondary sources should suit our needs. Some of our articles are historical in nature, others are not. I think we can (and actually have) defined the words in ways that make sense for this project. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)