Wikipedia talk:Proposal to replace No Original Research

"An allowance permitting primary sources to be used to counter secondary sources"
It seems to me that part of the issue here is over the word "research", since it means anything between "looking something up" and "putting together a complex analysis". Obviously we have to do the first, and want to avoid the second. But this really doesn't have a lot to do with sources.

Let me illustrate with work I've done here of late. I went through and made articles for every lighthouse in Maryland. There are three standard secondary sources for this: a long page from the USCG, pages from lighthousefriends.com, and Lighthouses of the Chesapeake by one de Gast. The second source only deals with extant lights, so sometimes I'm reduced to using the other two. OK, so one issue is how to describe where the light is/was. Here we run into two problems. First, as far as coordinates are concerned, the only one of these that has them is lighthousefriends. And on occaision, those coordinates are incorrect. How do I know this? Well, I go to primary sources: NOAA charts and Google Earth. For those that have been torn down, the charts and Google Earth are the only source. Second, even the verbal directions given are sometimes incorrect.

There's a limit to how seriously one can take "no original research", because deciding which conflicting source to believe is itself original work of a sort. In cases where a secondary source is simply repeating a primary source, the latter should take precedence; we should not put ourselves in the position of having to ratify the errors of our sources for the sake of a dogma. For quotations, primary sources which can be cited are absolutely superior to secondary sources, and we should refer them as a matter of course. And from what I can see, in practice this is hardly rare. For instance, articles on US legislation routinely cite the COngressional Record (via LoC) which is about as primary as sources get.

I personally think it's hard to justify saying that we should retain erroneous information simply because the only refutation comes from a primary source. Mangoe 14:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would think local historical societies would be places to find good secondary sources with correct information. Just because you cannot find good secondary sources on the internet does not mean they do not exist.-- Birgitte  SB  14:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Aye! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the time or place to argue for why one should be allowed to violate NOR. If you do not like the policy start a new page proposing something else.  Please read the comments at the top of this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 15:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Citing a fact based on a primary source is not OR. (if it is used to establish that fact, and not to imply some other new idea.)--Coppertwig 18:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the inclusion in this discussion of those who do not like the policy as it currently stands. --Coppertwig 18:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Every time some choose one source over another, they violate "original research" in the sense that it is being considered here. They cannot write a coherent article without violating it unless they only look at a single source (or those sources are uncommonly unanimous).


 * As for the "local historical societies", that's a "let them eat cake" comment if I ever heard one. Perhaps you should go look at the USCG pages for some insight into why that is so. In any case, the local historical societies are more commonly repositories of manifestly primary material. Maybe they have digested it, and maybe not; but in any case the obligation to verify that they've digested the material correctly is manifest if the means for such verification is at hand.


 * And in fact what the policy says is in line with this. It doesn't say, "you can't use primary sources." It simply limits how they can be used. The inference I'm taking from the comments I'm getting here, for instance, is that if lighthousefriends.com gives an erroneous location for a light, I have to use that one even though any person can plug their coordinates into Google Earth and see for themselves that the location given is incorrect. Because, after all, the standard here seems to be that actually checking is "original research".


 * I'm not really arguing for any particular change to the policy; but if this erroneous interpretation of it continues to plague us, we need to qualify it better. Mangoe 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In the case of lighthousefriends, Google Earth is a document. If it shows the lighthouse to be in a different location, why not link to the lighthouse's location and show how it and lighthousefriends disagree as to the location? Google Earth constitutes a document because someone took the time to take pictures and document them in an information-friendly format, allowing one to read the information, like someone reads a book or a codex - or a map. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 15:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)If there is a rare instance when a primary source is needed to correct erroneous information, do what's best. However, permitting such "corrections" as a matter of course would require a drastic shift in the core content policies. It is not only contrary not only to original research (we're not here to "correct" reliable publications), but also contrary to NPOV (which requires presenting views "that have been published by reliable sources"*) and verifiability (which explicitly states the needs for reliance on "reliable, third-party published sources"). If the sources you've found are insufficient or inaccurate, find better sources. If you do not have access to better sources, do the best with what you have within policy or pick another topic to work on. Vassyana 20:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO, whole section is hopelessly out-of-context. The "primary sources countering secondary sources" is an illustrative case for why some of us want more consideration of primary sources. As long as primary sources are strongly discouraged, this will remain strongly discouraged, and if some primary sources are allowed, either generally for in certain contexts, this will be allowed. I don't think anyone proposes to allow just any primary source. The debates generally come down to: I hope we can handle these one-at-a-time. I'm for the first three and am of two minds about the fourth; from personal experience I know that news sources can massively misrepresent certain events. Jacob Haller 20:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Peer-reviewed scholarly work, whether primary, secondary, or mixed
 * Census data and similar records - I think the lighthouses come down to that
 * Self-written works for beliefs
 * Recent events where secondary sources may be have gaps but eyewitness accounts are available

Generally, when the thing being cited is a pure factual matter, primary sources are regarded as more "accurate" than secondary sources. Secondary sources can mis-quote and introduce errors, whereas the primary source is straight from the horse's mouth. As long as there is no original research, and the source is published (and thus a reliable source), there's no reason to cite an obviously erroneous secondary source when you could cite the accurate primary source. CO GDEN  22:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the argument runs that secondary sources are necessary for any interpretation, analysis, or commentary, in order to avoid OR; taking the premise that an encyclopedia article shouldn't be bare statement of fact, we end up with the corollary that all articles should use secondary sources. This argument seems sound, as far as it goes, but there's no reason not to be using primary sources as well. SamBC(talk) 03:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why should we take the premise that an encyclopedia article should not be a bare statement of fact for granted? Yes, if there is published analysis, that should be incorporated in the article. But there are many subjects and even subject areas where published analysis is hard to find or even non-existent. Are we to ignore these subjects? Does that create a better encyclopedis? Dhaluza 08:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I agree that an encyclopedia article should contain some analysis, in addition to "bare statements of fact", the "bare statements of fact" are nevertheless crucial to any article. In fact, without the bare facts, analysis of those bare facts would be meaningless: any discussion of those facts by experts other than the author is icing on the cake. It's not an either-or proposition between facts and analyses. So long as a topic is notable (as evidenced by the presence of secondary sources or derivative primary sources), the kind of source you use doesn't really matter, so long as it is a reliable source and all significant points of view are covered in proportion to their relative prominence in the field. Problems with citations are usually related to WP:NPOV, not WP:OR, because most of the axes Wikipedia editors want to grind are not actually original. CO GDEN  02:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why I find fault with WP:NOR
(Copied and pasted from WT:N) An encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge; thus it, like other educational institutions, is a dispenser of information. Thus, it is impossible to merely remain in the background; an encyclopedia can inadvertently make a phenomenon more notable, and might somehow create notability by making more people aware of something. Because of this, usage of Wikipedia - or another encyclopedia - as a mere reflection of information might miss important phenomena going on in the background - phenomena which isn't recorded because nobody has bothered to write it down. How is someone supposed to get Wikipedia, or another dispenser of information, to notice such a phenomenon if all it is is a reflection of what other people wrote? &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum. Furthermore, knowledge of some things might depend on primary sources rather than secondary sources (for example, there are some affairs for which Wikipedia page histories themselves document the event occurring, such as the Bogdanov affair). WP:NOR comes up short when covering such events. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Disapprove. The paradox in which wikipedia lies in that from one part ask to her editors to 'think' as original texts to 'resume' what is said or written on a certain argument. But in other hand 'forbid' to the autors to 'think' enough to add their toughs, that, sorry for wikiburocrats, i must say, it's a natural phenomenon related with mind activity. You seriously cannot ask to editors to 'think half'. Or wiki buys what is already written from he/she said, or this policies will only give fuel to advocats, and will be used to kick off every 'unliked' statement, as the tale about security privatization and many more. I think that Common sense and Ignore all rules are enough good to make an acceptable encyclopedia.--Stefanomencarelli 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing - in what I have proposed or in the policy as it stands - has ever forbidden anyone to think anything. And if you think writing is simply typing out every thought in your mind, then you are not a prolific writer just an incontinent writer. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No traction...
I've come to the conclusion (see the NOR discussion page) that there will be no movement toward this proposal without a commissurate outcry against the current policy. I agree with your approach and believe it valid. The question now is how to demonstrate the existence of the widespread discontent we are speaking on behalf of to the rest of the community. Tcaudilllg 00:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)