Forum:CT:Original Research restriction

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Original Research restriction

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was relax the Original Research policy. jSarek 02:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It was agreed at the Mofference that our Original Research policy should not be a precise copy of Wikipedia's. The task before us, then, is to draw a line. I feel that a hardline "NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH EVER" policy is unwise. Consider, for example, Neelgaimon ...now if we can't source the fact that this is obviously a reference to the author Neil Gaiman, does that mean we can't mention it in the BTS section? No, that would be absurd. So as I see it, we have to permit a very limited degree of logical deduction, ideally based on evidence. Discuss. Gonk (Gonk!) 02:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I have nothing more to say than, that I fully support original research, as long as it is well done and with the general acceptance of the community. Carlitos Moff 03:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Against original research whatsoever. "Neelgaimon" being a reference to Neil Gaiman isn't original research, it's obvious. - Sikon 04:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Technically, it's speculation if there's no evidence to back it up regardless of logic. KEJ 12:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, and these differing opinions on what really constitutes "original research" are what need to be cleared up. Havac 17:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with a bit of stretching the lines of OR (a very small bit) in BTS, P&T, etc. but not in history or biography sections, etc. as those should only depict/describe canonical events. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No original research whatsoever. Ever. --Imperialles 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That's fantastic. Problem is, this isn't about allowing OR. It's about defining OR. Havac 22:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Our current policy has the following allowance: "What is not original research? Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions." This would seem to cover Neelgaimon. Can anyone think of a bit of possible OR that this would not cover, so we can discuss whether our definition needs any broadening? Gonk (Gonk!) 00:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd argue Neelgaimon requires an "additional assumption beyond what is in the source" in the sense that it's not explicitly present in the source, but flows logically when the source and some amount of additional information is considered. Havac 01:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Simply sourcing the existence of a notable individual by the name of Neil Gaiman (God/dess knows there's no shortage of sources on THAT) should make the logical deduction possible. jSarek 01:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • To comply with a total "No OR" ruling, most BTS info would probably have to go. I mean, nobody official ever said the SAGroups are a reference to the Hitler Jugend, the Imperial salute to the Hitler salute, or Karena to Karen Anderson (though KJA implied it in the preface to a Jedi Academy book), or... Basically, we can't assess the real-world parallels to anything. Commander Daal Imperial Emblem 09:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Frankly, that wouldn't hurt my feelings much at all. Though I imagine in a few of those Btses, the logical inferences would follow naturally from reference to the right sources. jSarek 11:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Many BTSes that are "just OR" are actually fairly useful, or at least that's my opinion. Especially since many of them explain references to exclusively American phenomena that users from the rest of the world wouldn't necessarily understand without them. Now, I don't personally have this problem (or at least not often), but I know those who do. Commander Daal Imperial Emblem 12:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Limit the OR to the BtS section. Most educated guesses like the possible/likely sources of names etc.. are IMHO really informative and should not be removed. But there seems to be OR outside of the BtS section in many articles, especially in articles concerning Jedi and Fleet Junkie topics (capital ships, ship armaments), that isn't marked as OR ("Jedi X used fighting stance Y in that scene, so he is clearly a practitioner of Form Z.", "Ship X is larger than ship Y so it is a cruiser/dreadnaught/whatever.", "This screenshot shows 3 bumps on that ship, these have to be turbolasers.") --Craven 11:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I haven't got a problem with OR, as long as it's not some wild guess or a crazy theory made up by some bored fan. Unit 8311 15:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • As Havac pointed out above, this isn't a discussion of whether or not to allow OR—OR will still be removed on sight. --Imperialles 16:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Even from BTS sections? Carlitos Moff 20:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Indeed. --Imperialles 20:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Isn't that a little unreasonable? Most BTSes would probably have to go then. This matter should be put up for a vote. Commander Daal Imperial Emblem 07:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
              • BTS will still always include who created the element of canon and stuff. There's always something to say. Thefourdotelipsis 11:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
                • That may well be true, but most of the text content is "just OR" and would have to go. And much of it is actually useful. Commander Daal Imperial Emblem 11:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • Can't it be reviewed on a "Case by case" basis? Carlitos Moff 21:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing some good examples here. At the risk of getting ahead of ourselves, I'm going to start a preliminary vote, just to try and clarify the terms of the discussion. Gonk (Gonk!) 17:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Current OR Definition

The precise nature of our "relaxing" of the OR definition for BTS and/or P&T would be our next vote. All I'm trying to do here is make sure there's consensus that our current OR definition needs to be changed. (Current definition is here.) Gonk (Gonk!) 17:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It works for main article text, but should be relaxed for BTS

  1. Per Craven's example ("Jedi X used fighting stance Y in that scene, so he is clearly a practitioner of Form Z." etc.). That sort of OR is as likely to pop up in P&T as the main article text, and if we stretch the definition to include that type of thing, we're asking for more McEwok/VT-16-style edit wars. Gonk (Gonk!) 17:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Original Research is in my opinion, totally justified on the Behind the Scenes as long as it is relevant to the topic and not completely moronic, ej. "Some fans agree that Ayala Secura suvived because she was too damn hot to die.". As I said before, if anyone has an especific problem with an especific bit of OR it should be reviewed on a Case by Case basis, and if most people agree it should be left out, the it will be left out. Carlitos Moff 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Relax the restriction to make things like obvious real-world parallels, simple extrapolation, etc. OK in the BTS section. Perhaps Gonk or another interested user should write up some hypothetical examples with acceptable levels of OR, which might be added to the policy page? —Silly Dan (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per earlier arguments... real-world inspirations and parallels can't be discussed if only official source material is to be used. I would consider that a serious loss. Commander Daal Imperial Emblem 09:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. I'm not surprised to see who's on the closed-minded side of this one. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 14:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Ozzel 16:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 17:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. I agree, but only for real-world parallels in the BTS section; I'm not too keen on OR with anything else unless its a "duh" moment. Even then . . . I'm sketchy. I definitely do not want OR in the main article if at all possible. Consider this a vote in support, but with a lot of corollaries. Master Aban Fiolli (Alpheridies University ComNet) NR Seal 19:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Chack Jadson Talk 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. If it's common sense, like the example on the top. I like the way we have now: strange coincidences should be mentioned if they are relevant (Revan-revenant, but not Slag-hose in Hungarian). - TopAce (Talk) 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Per Gonk. - Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 04:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Unit 8311 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. But not in the main body! Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It works for main article text, but should be relaxed for BTS & P&T

It works for all our content and shouldn't be relaxed for anything

  1. Imperialles 17:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Because I love being close-minded. KEJ 10:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Please. Thefourdotelipsis 14:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. I think the existence of the "logical inferences" clause protects enough material that lightening the definition is unnecessary. jSarek 01:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)