Knowledge talk:No original research/Archive 9

1552:. Obviously, despite its status as nobel-level science, it cannot be accepted in Knowledge until an outside source has verified it. But if all John did was synthesize previous verified knowledge and used it in the context of the article, what's wrong with it in the first place? It doesn't seem to be outright original research. Where is the line between synthesis of a secondary source and the creation of a primary one? And how much does WP:Verifiability weigh into situations such as these? Thank you for your time. -- 31: 1803:. I spiffed technical articles in my areas of expertise when I found something wrong. Interestingly, this was practically never-- just the occasional difference in personal opinion, not worth changing. I interpret this to indicate somebody like me had been there before, from the technical polish, probably lots of times. Forget all this other stuff-- there is a hidden legion of technical experts here that make sure stuff is right. You do not want to scare them off. 507:'Note that the Knowledge definition of original research is specific to Knowledge and may differ from usages of the phrase in other contexts. Knowledge articles may, and sometimes must, bring together information which is not collated elsewhere. Provided that all analytical as well as all factual statements made could, if requested, be referenced to reputable published sources, a contribution meets the criterion of "no original research".' 1541:. Ignoring the fact that this is flgarant listcruft, on the surface is seems to violate WP:NOR, since I doubt there is a compendium of the sort John has made in any (reputable) source. However, since one of the things the NOR article says is that synthesis in the context of the article is okay, John could simply cite a source for every character in the list which proves said character has a widow's peak. This seems agreeable. 1774:

sources, then what is the problem? And even if he does fail to present a balanced view, that would be an NPOV problem, and should be handled as such, not as a vanity problem. If you don't like him red-linking his own name, unlink it. If someone did start an article on him, I suspect it would be quickly put on AfD, and the question of whether WP needs an article about him would be settled there. --

1615:, this "mismatch" between their expectations and the training and experience of a typical "expert" can be a source of much friction and some bad feeling. Been there done that-- As an "expert" I have to keep reminding myself that the audience here has not been brought up in my particular (but not exclusive) tradition of intellectual discourse and quell my frustration. 1730:

The issue here is that an admin broke the rules to commit acts of vandalism over a personal conflict. When called upon it, he tried to change the rule he broke to cover his tracks. Clearly, this is a viable issue for the talk page of the rule he is attempting to change. For one thing, I can tell

1678:

Absolutely true and precisely my point. Systematically deleting/reverting anything posted by an expert under the excuse that he cites his own published work is an abuse. First, it is doubtful that you could find a single "expert" here who does not do it in good faith. What are you going to do,

1451:

Your first point is not an issue. Incidentally, I personally believe "stating the obvious" is not original research and intend to propose this for discussion. Nor is there a particular problem with experts operating under the same rules as everybody else. Bring it on, just as long as the playing

1851:

The preponderance of trolls pushing their own agendas has led to a knee-jerk reaction to researchers who cite their own works. Nevertheless, I would not object to anyone citing any work published in an authoritative and reputable journal or conference, and would in fact vehemently oppose a motion to

1618:

In a review, a researcher surveys the literature, doing, as the Knowledge rules require, "no original research" and backing all assertions by proper references to literature sources. As the Knowledge rule under consideration now allows, he will quote his own research at arms length. Nobody blinks at

1375:

I don't think it's always a question of 'experts' as such. If one happens to be at the boundaries of knowledge in an under-researched subject, it is quite possible to be innovative without laying claim to priveleged status. I, for example, coined the acronyms 'SS' and 'SR' ('simplified spelling' and

1154:

Citing yourself is not forbidden, although often viewed with suspicion. It's a matter of citing authoritative and reliable sources. If Stephen Hawking were a Knowledge editor, we certainly wouldn't complain about him making contributions citing his own papers. We would complain about him making new,

819:

I see no contradiction. Some physics articles, filled with lots of long words and impressive-looking equations, are true. Others are nonsense. Many Knowledge editors are incabable of telling the difference, and Knowledge has no mechanism to distinguish the qualified from the unqualified editors. The

335:

It seems to be a popular and common motivation to sprinkly discussion pages with warnings, constraints and other such triva. Any editor can do it and many editors seem to like doing it. I, for one, don't think they are worthy of discussion space since every discussion space falls under exactly all

257:

You don't have to disable anonymous editing, but vandalism is a problem. For pages with heavy traffic, it's an annoyance, but it doesn't compromise the integrity of Knowledge, because the edits are reverted quickly. However, for pages that are infrequently trafficked, vandalism can sit on the page

1473:

pattern of harassment, he also submitted for deletion a bio I had just put up and had not finished. As noted in his post above, Dunch's excuse was that I cited my own publications. When I pointed out that under the rule he proposes to change, this is perfectly OK, he comes here and proposes to

1329:

So what, You say--"Experts" are all just stuck up elitist A$ $ holes full of themselves and ready to tell you about their degrees and stuff in a way guaranteed to make you feel inadequate. Certainly arguable, but irrelevant. In fact, "Experts" provide the check that keeps Knowledge credible.

1386:

I for one am firmly opposed to this policy in any way discouraging expert editors from citing their own peer-reviewed works. This would pretty much cut out all of the leading experts in each field, as these experts would be neither capable nor desirous of posting reviews of their field that ignore

1325:

Similarly, the rule change is unworkable. Experts are few relative to the pages. We only wander through occasionally. Posting anything that just happens to contain a cite to ones own published work on the talk page and then waiting for permission to post it to the main page is just not going to

1032:

Normally, authors of a review of a topic, such as found in Encyclopedia Britannica, would have the professional experience necessary to evaluate which contributions within the subject are prominent and which shouldn't be given undue weight (in the sense of WP:NPOV). Knowledge articles also must do

986:

for specific criteria seems acceptable so long as the criteria are either stated directly, or if all the editors agree that the criteria is acceptable. What I think isn't allowed is asserting that something is or isn't notable by an arbitrary measure - for example, deciding that an author is only

629:

Just because someone's new doesn't mean they don't have something valuable to add. On the contrary, sometimes new people are still able to see the forest while we're all mired down in the trees. They can have a fresh take on things and be able to see how policies are actually presented without all

619:

the newcomers, I would say rather that while anyone can make suggestions on anything, or edit anything, this article makes up one of the core policies of wikipedia, and therefore will likely take a lot of wikipedia experience to really understand. (and, his suggestion did not seem unreasonable to

1037:

measurement to inform these editorial decisions. For example, citation indexes can be one tool in identifying an academic's most prominent papers, or can be relevant in considerations of whether an argument has significant presence in the literature. The proposal is that citations of these direct

493:

and not with reference to other usages of the phrase. In particular, the act of collation of published material, without any novel analysis, would be regarded as 'original research' in some contexts. An example would be the compilation of a catalogue of manuscripts on a particular topic, collated

1495:

Stating the obvious is rarely an issue. If it truly is the obvious, it is trivial to verify; most of the listed sources for the article will surely support statements of the obvious (we do not have to have every source linked as footnotes to individual statements, after all, we can also include

1773:

Until Pproctor starts writing his own article, or describing his cited publications in fulsome terms, I fail to see how WP:VAIN applies. If he is citing items that have been published by reliable sources in a balanced way that does not ignore or dismiss other equally or more prominent published

1419:

This is a general encyclopaedia, for a general audience, and we are non-expert editors. We cannot be expected to judge the difference between an expert original synthesis and an eccentric one. Jimbo has specifically clarified that even original syntheses from secondary sources are forbidden.

1275:. As he has done before and been censored for, he engaged in all sorts of specifically-forbidden behavior, doing reverts, deleting "disputed section" tags, etc. All without discussion in the Talk page. For some previous history of Dunc's shenangans and a series of editor complaints, see 696:

WP:V just applies to Knowledge as far as I know, so that last bit is not relevent. Anyway since when is Knowledge a democratic system? It specifically isn't. We operate on consensus for the most part... but sometimes consensus is wrong. If there were a consensus to put unsourced libel into an

1619:

this and it is not "vanity". Imagine the response if some scientific journal editor had a rule that experts could not cite their own work becasue this is somehow a "vanity publication". First, such a review would completely lack credibility. Second, nobody would ever submit such an article.

321:

There's been some in the past. Mostly archived now. The issue is that NOR was created partly to prevent trolls and cranks from posting original theories on WP; when they do, it is removed and NOR is cited. They come here and attempt to argue the problem is with the policy and not with them.

1313:

For example, if Dunc's revision sticks, it gives free reign for people like him to stalk Knowledge reverting any expert who quite legally cited his own work under the present rule. Just like Dunc did to me. And, just like me, these experts will quite reasonably believe they have been

225:, not to mention all the other recent scandals in both print and television. If professionally edited publications are having to tighten their own practices, the world's largest freelance-edited encyclopedia's policy on sourcing looks positively progressive and ultra-responsible. ~ 1951:

Nothing contradictory about the rules. They are long-standing and not to be changed just because you got caught out violating one for the nth time. A modest suggestion-- While you are at it, why not do a complete job and also try to change the rules you were cited for violating

1326:

happen. It also sets experts up as unequal-- anybody can cite our work but ourselves. All that will happen is more sock-puppets and anonymous posters. Why register when you can avoid the problem by staying anonymous? I never had any problems until I actually registered.

1397:

Unfortunately, giving up on rational discourse, some editors do everything they can to drive off experts who differ with them. In my personal experience, this can include frank acts of vandalism and sabotage. Something should be done about such "fools and trolls" in

556:

Looks fairly good, but as a historian who works on historical articles, I'd like a somewhat stronger sense that the information is not selected or brought together in such a way as to present a novel narrative or interpretation, as mentioned in Delirium's discussion with

258:

for months before someone removes it. For those pages, you shouldn't disable anonmyous editing, but you should subject it to some sort of concensus voting. Even requiring just one additional user to "ratify" an edit would cut down on a big chunk of drive-by vandalism.

1289:

Following this, Dunc proceeded to track down and revert/delete as many of my entries as he could find under the excuse of "Vanity", citing the fact that I had refered to my own published works. This sure looks like cyberstalking to me. The lesson I learned-- Cross

139:, thus it's certainly verifiable; and its editor suggests to be well-known in Asia. However, I could not find it catalogued or referenced in Web of Science, nor in Scopus. Thus I fear that it's so unknown that isn't even not reputable. What to do with references to it? 1344:

In line with the reasoning above, I did a revert to before with the additional note that the "Experts can cite their own works" provision is to equalize their second-class status in not being able to cite their own works, even if these otherwise meet the criteria.

1452:

field is level. The rule at issue just establishes this. At present it merely removes expert's second class citizen status under the "vanity publication" prohibition and allows them to cite their own published works at arms length, just like everyone else can.

919:), seems to be permitable under this policy. Citation indexes are an important tool used in the academic community to gauge the influence of topics, authors, and papers. In the context of NOR, since citations of citation indexes are immediately verifiable (per 784:

And I am in complete agreement with Jimbo. My problem is only with the specific way it's been worded, which precludes future maintenance... That might be just a bit of a problem if we want to keep the wiki around for over 100 years (which I do) ;-) See also:

1696:

Well I can see part of the problem. Namechecking yourself always looks a bit off, and redlinking your own name looks very much like vanity, an implicit invitation to create an article on you (well done for not clicking the redlink, though). Also, text like

1098:

I'm not sure where this policy exists. Can you enlighten — maybe provide a link? Anyway, the idea that all good work has to be published by somebody else really falls short of the mark. For example, I could not have done the editing and rewrite of the

1083:

I believe that basic humility and Wikiquette essentially forbids one from talking about one's own work, as even if in good faith it may be taken the wrong way. I also believe that there are fairly well established principles on such vanity editing. —

1301:

Keeping calm after all this vandalism, I then pointed out that the rules specifically-allow "experts" to cite their own work, as long as they treat it no differently from any other cite. Having been caught red-handed again breaking the rules,

472: 1429:

There is a quite seperate problem with excessive emphasis on certain areas within an article, which represent a significant minority (but still a minority) view. Here I have seen subject experts driven off by trolls promoting minority views.

1662:

Pproctor, people are allowed to cite their own published work, so long as it's specifically about the topic and is what we regard as a reliable source, and provided it's written in a disinterested tone and in accordance with NOR and NPOV.

1533:

I'm new around here, or at least my account is new. But I've been using Knowledge anonymously long enough to have learned about some of its policies beforehand. And I had a question about this, one of the holy trinity of Wiki policies.

1103:

article had I not used a self-published history of that town by Gladys Waddingham. It is thoroughly cited within the body of the article and can be examined by anybody who cares to cast a doubt on any of the facts or theories she

1608:. Unfortunately, many non-scientist Wiki editors are clearly not aquainted with how consensus is reached in science or the way scientific review articles ( Which are fancy versions of what Knowledge does ) operate. As 416:

These templates probably mean a great deal to the people who place them. But to the people who are doing the trolling, they mean nothing at all. The template didn't cool the hot discussion that went on and on and on.

964:

Nectarflowed: If you think it'll improve what's being said, I'd say go ahead, this is a wiki. Unfortunately, there's some people who seem to want to lock this page down, however. I'm not sure what they're going to say.

752:

JA: WP is not a democracy. It is a proprietary software system that you use under what amounts to a contractual agreement to comply with certain rules, otherwise you can be prevented from using the software. Period.

1548:. Instead of doing what a sane person would do -- publish the article in a peer-reviewed journal and reap in the mountains of acclaim within the scientific community and without, he instead makes the Knowledge article 1376:'spelling reform' respectively) in a field in which ongoing discussion seemed to be crying out for such abbreviation: but I don't feel that these, or my other coinings, make me an 'expert.' Or am I being too humble? -- 1038:

measurements of the literature be permittable in footnotes in relation to summaries of the literature. I think this article is actually already pretty clear on these matters and an addition probably isn't necessary.--

1538: 511: 1566:

and democratically posting it here, first, rather than some exclusive scientific journal, is not his claim to have unravelled the underlying theory behind the cosmos, but the suggestion that said theory is somehow

889:. Then someone introduced that all three policies are non-negotiable. Well, I just don't think that is the intent of our founder. I think that leads to arguements on this page, based on the false assertion that 307:

Not sure why the warning against trolling is on this page. I don't see any sign of it, nor any indication that this page is more subject to trolling than any other discussion page. Am I missing some history here?

668:

I don't buy into the claim that the last act of a democratic system is to vote out democracy. I equally don't buy into the claim that the last act of a consensus system is to refute consensus. Wording removed.

489:: See 'The true meaning of Original Research' discussion. Some concerns about NOR appear to come from misunderstandings of the policy. Within Knowledge, "no original research" should be understood as set out on 609: 991:, versus 999. Or deciding that the term to be chosen for the search should be "apples" or "granny smiths", if there is any particular disagreement regarding what criteria should be used for the measure. -- 1219:

must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own results and references be added so that other editors can make the suggested changes.

1126:

reputable." (Sometimes, as an editor, that is exactly what I do: I check the source given in an article to verify that it says exactly what the author of the article is claiming; quite often it does not.)

683:

been negotiated and eventually discarded in the case of wikinews, another wikimedia project. Stating that this guideline would be non-negotiable is therefore empirically false, and extremely misleading.

238:

Were Knowledge to require editors to register, as opposed to any anon editor from any IP address, anywhere, anytime; our articles would have less vandalism and we editors' efforts would be better spent.

1502:

If you want to make a change that in any way might be interpreted as self-promotion, you need to discuss it on the talk page of the article first. If your edit is valid, someone else will do it for you

483:: There are types of contribution which are permitted under the NOR policy but which would be categorised as 'original research' in certain contexts outside Knowledge. This is confusing to some users. 1508:'s books on Hooke as a source, but Gunther was a huge fan of Hooke's and you have to treat what he says with a little scepticism, just as you must take Hooke's own statements with a grain of salt. 1195:

must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes.

1141:

George, thankyou for your comments. I think you misunderstand though. Citing something written by someone else is obviously desirable. Citing yourself (Reflexively) is bad Wikiquette. —

434:

The templates are not aimed at the trolls, they are intended to remind contributors to be careful about feeding trolls, i.e., that the best way to deals with trolls is to ignore them. --

1504:. Like I said, we cannot tell the difference, as non-specialists, between an expert and a POV-pusher. I happen to think that Robert Hooke is unjustly under-recognised, and I have 1865:

I have reverted the rule back to its original form. This includes reverting the modest addition I made to it. There is no consensus here for changing such a long-standing rule.

517:

Sounds good to me, I know it confused me when I first started here coming from a Master's Degree in Heritage Preservation as it meant something different to me before I got here.

1701:

looks like the writing of the disgruntled rather than the disinterested. But this Talk page is not the place to air one editor's grievances with one admin, that is a job for the

1588:

Ah, well, the title of the article was only to elucidate a point (and for humor), but I am absolutely sure that Scott's GUT would be deleted as per WP:NOR. Should it, though? --

1549: 494:

from the published catalogues of multiple archives. Novel collations are an important aspect of Knowledge activity and are not inappropriate provided they include only factual

1896:) is are unaware of the long-standing principles on vanity guidelines. Whilst most editors can be trusted to behave themselves, those trolls that cite themselves and violate 1679:

hunt down their postings and delete them? Think it can't happen-- I just had it happen to me for stuff I posted in perfectly good faith and entirly in accord with the rules.

1420:

Knowledge is not a publisher of first instance, I for one am comfortable with that. Expert or not, if it's not verifiable from cited secondary sources it's not for Knowledge.

223: 392: 1203:

If an expert has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the expert may add the results to a new or existing article, and

1016: 995: 1653: 1633: 1592: 1579: 1388: 1042: 1027: 1469:

by trollish behavior. ( Yes, Dunc, you win, FWIW.) This includes searching out and reverting everything he could find I had posted on Knowledge. As part of

1135: 744: 581: 201: 1410: 1334: 1109:

There are plenty of other small-town histories that have been self-published, and what about the printed histories of large companies or organizations like the

945: 841: 824: 1962: 1954: 1934: 1750: 1683: 1669: 1589: 1553: 1276: 969: 714: 701: 564: 1912:

Committee) are usually easy to spot. The guidelines were contradictory, so they must be amended to be non-contradictory. The only one whining about them is

900: 466: 421: 1630: 1252: 793: 634: 521: 388: 1807: 1782: 1380: 624: 326: 181: 160: 1234:

clarify in the last sentence that the expert editor is asking that something be done, and the sentence is not talking about something that already occured.

933:

The purpose of policy is to present the philosophy which can be followed by editors. Editors understand the concepts and then create guidelines which are

547: 442: 288: 279: 1368: 653: 534: 1869: 1856: 1242: 810: 243: 1748:

As for "dispute resolution"-- The admin was recently censored for similar erratic behavior, drawing a lot of ancillary complaints in the process. See:

1713: 1516: 1478: 1438: 1169: 363: 340: 266: 252: 1838: 1149: 1092: 143: 1231:

phrase the policy so that results and references are always considered together, and avoid any implication that one should be added without the other

1012:

is indeed appropriate if someone is looking for articles on apples.) That's a good example of the kind of problem that citation indexes can solve. --

762: 508: 1623: 232: 1286:. After posting here anonymously for years without incident, I made the horrible mistake of registering and then actually revealing who I am. 1159: 927: 942: 897: 698: 418: 337: 285: 240: 157: 97: 89: 84: 1391: 1799:

In off moments, I have prowled Knowledge anonymously with a green-shaded squity eye and virtual editor's pencil in crabbed hand almost since

1629:

Can you give a specific example of where someone deleted your including a citation to a çn article you published in a peer-reviewed journal?

1605: 1572: 1258: 862: 800:

Jim Wales says, in the link, 'we are not qualified to evaluate such things,' surely a direct contradiction of his key earlier assertion that

690: 72: 67: 59: 1556: 875: 757: 732: 1958:. Ad hominems aside-- Any fundamental rule changes ought to have a pretty good concensus. I even reverted the modest change I had made. 1496:

sources in the References section which support the article as a whole). Citing your own work as a source is likely to cause problems per

1349: 1853: 1249: 1156: 544: 323: 249: 1800: 778: 456: 375: 315: 411: 1339: 105: 871:

first. But seriously, folks, people who have not made the acquaintance of basic WP policies should not be truckin' wit dis page.

1122:

The operative feature under which I operate i: "Cite what I consider to be a reputable source and let the reader prove that it is

1699:

Though published in a major journal, these findings were likely ignored until similar devices were developed about 20 years later

1165:

I wouldn't. It seems in some ways a superior way of disseminating new knowledge than via the route of priveleged access media. --

710:

Consensus is not a suicide pact, but neither should we walk all over it. It's a very bad day when people trod on consensus.

396: 1500:, but if there are good quality syntheses which also cite your material you can cite them without trouble. As Dunc said, 1826:

Donald, what he is doing is inserting text crediting himself for something, and citing his own work in support of that.

1330:

If we have to tiptoe around the likes of Dunc and his ex-post-facto rule change, we can find much better things to do.

336:

of and every policy and guideline. Such warnings are drivel, distracting to the allocated discussion space and useless.

47: 17: 923:), they seem to be categorically no different from normal citations. Any opposition to mentioning them in this policy?-- 1058: 211: 135:- Particular issue: In one article referral is made to a journal called "AAPPS Bulletin". It's available on the web 1179:

If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Knowledge can

1212: 1188: 1000:

For context, JereKrischel is referring to an argument he's made that there's no categorical distinction between

592:

Happydemic, with all due respect to a newbie, I would suggest you get some experience contributing to Knowledge

1923: 1893: 1600: 1077: 837:

So, because some people are capable of seeing that other poor folx just ain't, the one-eyed Jimbo is king? --

156:

It looks like a substantial website. Certainly it is attributable, it boasts have subsiderary memberships.

1562:

To answer one idiosyncratic posting with another: the only problem I have with 'Scott' arriving at a valid

786: 1298:

and you will surely pay for it. If anyone but an adminstrator did this, they would be quickly banned.

271:

Except for the fact that someone could create two accounts, and use one to 'ratify' the other's edits. --

1216: 1192: 117: 1310:

now apparently wants to change them to cover his tracks. Good for him, perhaps, but bad for Knowledge.

38: 1008:

journals in the discipline that publish a majority of their articles on that subject. (A search for

177:. Can a journal that apparently can't be found in any journals database be claimed to be reputable? 1204: 1180: 906: 169:

Exactly: that makes it certainly NOR. However, as I pointed out first, this particular section is

1364: 820:

solution is to remove the responsibility from WP editors and place it on reputable publishers. --

774: 673: 605: 150: 132:. I think that something must be done about it, but I don't know what. Suggestions are welcome! 697:

article, would we have no choice but to go ahead and do it? Consensus is not a suicide pact. --

663: 147: 1100: 851:

I enjoy reading this page, but some of the edit summaries are getting a little smarmy, viz:

216:

If anyone still doubts the wisdom of requiring reliable sources, consider the problems that

1931: 1667: 1563: 1545: 1307: 1295: 1268: 1146: 1089: 1063:

I have made a change to the policy which now refers to how editors should cite themselves.

1025: 558: 409: 384: 8: 561: 1917: 1887: 1208: 1184: 1114: 1071: 222:

magazine is currently having with its freelancers manufacturing quotes and information

198: 1612: 1528: 1403: 1319: 1239: 1039: 1013: 992: 924: 821: 264: 248:

We're not disabling anonymous editing. This comes up every week at the Village Pump.

1314:

vandalized. But this time, under "Color of Law". And, as Knowledge cofounder

405:

I think it would be a good idea to leave it. The latest round wasn't that long ago.

1466: 1272: 1132: 966: 859: 790: 741: 724: 711: 687: 453: 380:

No reason why not. If it's a problem, someone will yell at you and put it up again.

372: 312: 302: 1927: 1664: 1360: 1303: 1291: 1264: 1142: 1085: 1022: 872: 770: 754: 729: 621: 601: 406: 229: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1901: 1897: 1827: 1731:

you from personal experience what would happen should this rule change go thru.

1505: 1497: 1248:

Sounds like a good rewording to me. This merely clarifies the original intent.

988: 983: 938: 916: 886: 616: 504:: To be added either to the 'Expert Editors' section or elsewhere as desired: 473:

Proposal: State that "no original research" has a specific meaning on Knowledge

125: 1959: 1913: 1883: 1866: 1831: 1804: 1755: 1706: 1680: 1650: 1620: 1509: 1475: 1431: 1407: 1346: 1331: 1067: 912: 890: 490: 178: 140: 129: 121: 647:

Yes. Something I said myself the previous day in the field of Irish spelling

1776: 1702: 1609: 1576: 1399: 1377: 1315: 1166: 1117:? They weren't published by any third party, yet they are cited as sources. 915:, databases which count the number of citations of academic articles (e.g. 838: 807: 650: 578: 531: 436: 360: 273: 259: 452:

I guess it's not important enough to risk an ensuing fuss if I remove it.

1909: 920: 868: 631: 518: 463: 1905: 1544:

Now we have Scott. Scott has used prior scientific knowledge to craft a

120:- General issue: I'm a bit puzzled by what that section is doing on the 1356: 766: 597: 226: 106: 1021:

Nectar, what were you proposing to add about these databases exactly?

477:

Emerging from the discussion 'The true meaning of Original Research'.

1852:

remove such content on the basis of "vanity", which is not a policy.

1474:

change the rule. It is such kinds of "arguement" that I object too.

630:

the "baggage" of knowing what it really means. Does that make sense?

1004:

journals that publish 1% of their articles on a certain subject and

1643: 1387:

their own work. We need to be more welcoming to experts, not less.

1033:

this, and in this context citation indexes offer a verifiable and

1283: 953:

Wait! This is NOR... heh, there's some amount of irony there :-)

596:

you start making suggestions about how to improve its policies.

498:

information already available in reputable published sources.

111: 355:

theories'? There is nothing wrong with originality, but there

1263:

I am the origin of all this fuss. I got into a tangle with

218: 1066:

I have made these changes as a result of a discussion with

1754:. He clearly did not change his behavior because of this. 1647: 1642:

One example, among several--Look on the history page of

1537:

Let's say we have John. John decides to make the article

1470: 1110: 801: 195: 136: 371:

How about if I "off" it, then? I love deleting things.

197:

You're looking for journals in all the wrong places...

1955:

Knowledge:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture

1908:

about the "shocking injustice" you were served by the

1751:

Knowledge:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture

1277:

Knowledge:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture

950:

Fascinating theory. Do you have a reference for that?

1465:

As for your last point. I just got driven off from

1228:use the active voice, so it is clear who is acting 194:Um, it says "AAPPS Bulletin" not "AAPPS Journal". 1926:) who happens to like inflating his own ego. — 1355:Thanks. That is a better, more compact version. 543:Sure. It's jargon, that deserves clarification. 124:page - I'd say it's mostly about the subject of 1539:List of Fictional Characters with Widow's Peaks 128:, and it even doesn't have a direct bearing on 1606:What we have here is a failure to communicate 351:Why don't you call a spade a spade, and say ' 804:was introduced because of 'physics cranks' 789:, for discussion about the phrasing there. 359:something wrong with misleading people. -- 937:. This isn't the place to mention that. 895:Smarminess results from misunderstandings 941:might be. Various help pages might be. 853:do try to read it for yourself sometime. 1175:I would like to change this paragraph: 14: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1259:Editors citing themselves rule change 1322:, you won't see them here any more. 1080:) on his eagerness to cite himself. 867:JA: Apparently not without having a 763:See what Jimbo said today about this 112:_NPOV-2006-08-09T22:13:00.000Z": --> 107:_NPOV-2006-08-09T22:13:00.000Z": --> 25: 987:notable if they have 1,000 hits in 23: 18:Knowledge talk:No original research 679:In addition, no original research 24: 1980: 1207:. The expert should write in the 1406:. But it probably will not be. 893:is absolute and non-negotiable. 29: 1282:I've been touching here since 982:Nectar, citing the results of 530:Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... -- 13: 1: 855:Can't we all just get along? 109:Reputable publications -: --> 1550:Scott's Theory of Everything 1199:so that it read as follows: 881:It used to be that the only 787:Knowledge talk:Verifiability 173:really about NOR, but about 7: 1963:15:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 1935:13:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 1870:01:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 1857:20:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 1839:21:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 1808:15:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 1783:12:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 1758:23:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC} 1714:20:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1684:17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1670:17:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1654:17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1634:17:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1624:14:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1593:19:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1580:17:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1557:13:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1517:16:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1479:16:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1439:14:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1411:14:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1392:11:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1381:16:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1369:00:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1350:23:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 1335:21:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 1253:08:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1243:20:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 1170:12:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1160:20:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 1150:19:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 1136:18:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 1093:17:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 1043:00:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 1028:17:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 1017:02:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 996:00:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 970:20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 946:20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 928:10:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 901:20:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 876:18:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 863:18:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 842:20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 825:19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 811:18:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 794:16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 779:15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 758:16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 745:15:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 733:15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 715:15:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 702:14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 691:12:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 654:08:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 635:02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 625:23:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 610:20:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 582:02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 565:01:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 548:19:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 535:19:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 522:17:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 512:17:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 467:02:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 457:04:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 443:12:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 422:07:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 412:11:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 376:05:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 364:08:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 341:14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 327:22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 316:20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 289:23:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 280:23:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 267:19:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 253:22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 244:18:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 233:09:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 202:20:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 182:19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 161:04:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 10: 1985: 284:Both funny and true. lol. 145:22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 1904:(e.g. by citing your own 1059:Editors citing themselves 212:More reasons for sourcing 1646:for any changes made by 1155:unpublished statements. 1187:and complying with our 674:Knowledge:Verifiability 1601:Failure to Communicate 1590:The Sultan of Surreal. 1554:The Sultan of Surreal. 1222: 1197: 1201: 1183:while writing in the 1177: 1101:Inglewood, California 137:http://www.aapps.org/ 42:of past discussions. 1564:Theory of Everything 1546:grand unified theory 1211:and comply with our 1703:dispute resolution 1115:Ford Motor Company 1367: 1224:My purpose is to 1217:vanity guidelines 1193:vanity guidelines 954: 777: 608: 577:Utopian, that. -- 502:Proposed solution 401: 387:comment added by 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1976: 1835: 1779: 1710: 1513: 1467:Raymond Damadian 1435: 1359: 1273:Raymond Damadian 1205:cite that source 1181:cite that source 952: 913:citation indexes 907:Citation indexes 769: 615:In order not to 600: 439: 400: 381: 276: 152: 149: 119: 113: 108: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1984: 1983: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1833: 1777: 1708: 1603: 1531: 1511: 1433: 1342: 1261: 1061: 909: 722:JA: Please see 666: 475: 437: 382: 305: 274: 214: 115: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1982: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1860: 1859: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1673: 1672: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1637: 1636: 1631:200.110.89.159 1602: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1583: 1582: 1530: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1506:Robert Gunther 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1414: 1413: 1384: 1383: 1372: 1371: 1341: 1340:Back to before 1338: 1260: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1236: 1235: 1232: 1229: 1173: 1172: 1139: 1138: 1128: 1127: 1119: 1118: 1106: 1105: 1060: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 989:Google Scholar 984:Google Scholar 975: 974: 973: 972: 959: 958: 957: 956: 917:Google Scholar 908: 905: 904: 903: 883:non-negotiable 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 830: 829: 828: 827: 814: 813: 797: 796: 750: 749: 748: 747: 720: 719: 718: 717: 705: 704: 665: 664:Non negotiable 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 640: 639: 638: 637: 591: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 570: 569: 568: 567: 562:SteveMcCluskey 551: 550: 540: 539: 538: 537: 525: 524: 496:and analytical 474: 471: 470: 469: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 427: 426: 425: 424: 389:208.45.125.222 369: 368: 367: 366: 346: 345: 344: 343: 330: 329: 304: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 213: 210: 209: 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 187: 186: 185: 184: 164: 163: 114: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1981: 1964: 1961: 1957: 1956: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1936: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1922: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1892: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1871: 1868: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1858: 1855: 1850: 1849: 1840: 1837: 1829: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1809: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1784: 1781: 1780: 1778:Donald Albury 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1757: 1753: 1752: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1715: 1712: 1704: 1700: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1685: 1682: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1671: 1668: 1666: 1661: 1660: 1655: 1652: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1635: 1632: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1622: 1616: 1614: 1611: 1607: 1594: 1591: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1581: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1565: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1542: 1540: 1535: 1518: 1515: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1480: 1477: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1440: 1437: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1412: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1390: 1382: 1379: 1374: 1373: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1348: 1337: 1336: 1333: 1327: 1323: 1321: 1317: 1311: 1309: 1305: 1299: 1297: 1293: 1287: 1285: 1280: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1254: 1251: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1241: 1233: 1230: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1221: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1200: 1196: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1176: 1171: 1168: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1158: 1152: 1151: 1148: 1144: 1137: 1134: 1130: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1107: 1102: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1091: 1087: 1081: 1079: 1076: 1073: 1069: 1064: 1044: 1041: 1036: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1026: 1024: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 999: 998: 997: 994: 990: 985: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 971: 968: 963: 962: 961: 960: 955: 949: 948: 947: 944: 940: 936: 932: 931: 930: 929: 926: 922: 918: 914: 902: 899: 896: 892: 888: 884: 880: 879: 878: 877: 874: 870: 865: 864: 861: 856: 854: 843: 840: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 826: 823: 818: 817: 816: 815: 812: 809: 805: 803: 799: 798: 795: 792: 788: 783: 782: 781: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 760: 759: 756: 746: 743: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 731: 727: 726: 716: 713: 709: 708: 707: 706: 703: 700: 695: 694: 693: 692: 689: 685: 682: 677: 675: 670: 655: 652: 648: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 636: 633: 628: 627: 626: 623: 618: 614: 613: 612: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 583: 580: 576: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 566: 563: 559: 555: 554: 553: 552: 549: 546: 542: 541: 536: 533: 529: 528: 527: 526: 523: 520: 516: 515: 514: 513: 510: 505: 503: 499: 497: 492: 488: 484: 482: 478: 468: 465: 461: 460: 459: 458: 455: 444: 441: 440: 438:Donald Albury 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 423: 420: 415: 414: 413: 410: 408: 404: 403: 402: 398: 394: 390: 386: 378: 377: 374: 365: 362: 358: 354: 350: 349: 348: 347: 342: 339: 334: 333: 332: 331: 328: 325: 320: 319: 318: 317: 314: 309: 290: 287: 283: 282: 281: 278: 277: 275:Donald Albury 270: 269: 268: 265: 263: 262: 256: 255: 254: 251: 247: 246: 245: 242: 237: 236: 235: 234: 231: 228: 224: 221: 220: 203: 200: 199:FeloniousMonk 196: 193: 192: 191: 190: 189: 188: 183: 180: 176: 172: 168: 167: 166: 165: 162: 159: 155: 154: 153: 146: 142: 138: 133: 131: 127: 123: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1953: 1920: 1890: 1775: 1749: 1698: 1617: 1610:Larry Sanger 1604: 1568: 1543: 1536: 1532: 1501: 1400:Larry Sanger 1389:Snottygobble 1385: 1343: 1328: 1324: 1316:Larry Sanger 1312: 1300: 1288: 1281: 1262: 1240:Gerry Ashton 1237: 1223: 1215:. However, 1209:third person 1202: 1198: 1191:. However, 1185:third person 1178: 1174: 1153: 1140: 1123: 1082: 1074: 1065: 1062: 1035:quantifiable 1034: 1009: 1005: 1001: 993:JereKrischel 951: 934: 910: 894: 882: 866: 857: 852: 850: 822:Gerry Ashton 761: 751: 723: 721: 686: 680: 678: 671: 667: 593: 590: 506: 501: 500: 495: 486: 485: 480: 479: 476: 451: 435: 379: 370: 356: 352: 310: 306: 272: 260: 217: 215: 175:reputability 174: 170: 134: 116: 78: 43: 37: 1910:Nobel Prize 1213:NPOV policy 1189:NPOV policy 1133:GeorgeLouis 1131:Sincerely, 967:Kim Bruning 911:The use of 885:policy was 860:GeorgeLouis 858:Sincerely, 791:Kim Bruning 742:Kim Bruning 712:Kim Bruning 688:Kim Bruning 454:GeorgeLouis 383:—Preceding 373:GeorgeLouis 313:GeorgeLouis 311:Sincerely, 151:_NPOV": --> 148:_NPOV": --> 144:_NPOV": --> 118:_NPOV": --> 36:This is an 1705:processe. 1665:SlimVirgin 1573:Scott's... 1104:presented. 1023:SlimVirgin 1006:specialist 873:Jon Awbrey 869:LAugh Riot 755:Jon Awbrey 730:Jon Awbrey 672:See also: 622:Xyzzyplugh 509:Happydemic 487:Discussion 462:Indeed... 407:SlimVirgin 98:Archive 15 90:Archive 11 85:Archive 10 1836:you know? 1832:Just zis 1830:applies/ 1711:you know? 1707:Just zis 1529:The Line? 1514:you know? 1510:Just zis 1436:you know? 1432:Just zis 1357:≈ jossi ≈ 767:≈ jossi ≈ 725:WP:Is Not 598:≈ jossi ≈ 79:Archive 9 73:Archive 8 68:Archive 7 60:Archive 5 1960:Pproctor 1924:contribs 1914:Pproctor 1894:contribs 1884:Pproctor 1882:Perhaps 1867:Pproctor 1805:Pproctor 1801:Neupedia 1756:Pproctor 1681:Pproctor 1651:Pproctor 1644:melanins 1621:Pproctor 1476:Pproctor 1408:Pproctor 1347:Pproctor 1332:Pproctor 1271:over on 1078:contribs 1068:Pproctor 935:How to's 397:contribs 385:unsigned 353:crackpot 303:Trolling 179:Harald88 141:Harald88 1902:WP:VAIN 1898:WP:NPOV 1828:WP:VAIN 1577:Etaonsh 1498:WP:VAIN 1402:'s apt 1378:Etaonsh 1284:Nupedia 1167:Etaonsh 1002:general 943:Terryeo 939:WP:CITE 898:Terryeo 887:WP:NPOV 839:Etaonsh 808:Etaonsh 699:W.marsh 651:Etaonsh 579:Etaonsh 532:Etaonsh 481:Problem 464:Michael 419:Terryeo 361:Etaonsh 338:Terryeo 286:Terryeo 261:Michael 241:Terryeo 158:Terryeo 126:WP:NPOV 39:archive 1952:here : 1575:'). -- 1471:Dunc's 1404:phrase 1040:Nectar 1014:Nectar 1010:apples 925:Nectar 891:WP:NOR 632:plange 620:me) -- 594:before 557:Jimbo. 519:plange 491:WP:NOR 230:(talk) 227:Jeff Q 130:WP:NOR 122:WP:NOR 1906:whine 1613:notes 1320:noted 1279:. 806:]? -- 740:Huh? 649:]. -- 219:Wired 16:< 1928:Dunc 1918:talk 1900:and 1888:talk 1854:Deco 1648:Dunc 1318:has 1304:Dunc 1292:Dunc 1265:Dunc 1250:Deco 1157:Deco 1143:Dunc 1086:Dunc 1072:talk 921:WP:V 617:bite 545:Deco 393:talk 324:Deco 250:Deco 110:NPOV 1834:Guy 1709:Guy 1569:his 1512:Guy 1434:Guy 1124:dis 1113:or 1111:BBC 802:NOR 728:. 681:has 171:not 1571:(' 1363:• 1238:-- 773:• 765:. 676:. 604:• 560:-- 399:) 395:• 357:is 94:→ 64:← 1932:☺ 1930:| 1921:· 1916:( 1891:· 1886:( 1365:@ 1361:t 1308:☺ 1306:| 1296:☺ 1294:| 1269:☺ 1267:| 1147:☺ 1145:| 1090:☺ 1088:| 1075:· 1070:( 775:@ 771:t 606:@ 602:t 391:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:No original research/Archive 9 - Knowledge

Index