NEW IDEAS

NEW IDEAS

I thought NEW IDEAS is a NO!,NO! NO! in Wikipedia. That Wikipedia relies on Others-- Reliable Source.

I would like Administration to Clarify this Matter.

99.19.14.13209:19, 10 May 2011

Yes, the Wikipedia community has a policy against original research. However, the Wikimedia Foundation (the 'administration') plays no role in determining community policy or content.

Mono04:55, 12 May 2011

So a rule that can be ignored?

Corvus Tzu07:51, 12 May 2011

No, just a rule that isn't relevant to the people who are responsible for keeping our servers running. If we were a hierarchical organisation then presumably the Foundation would be ultimately responsible for such things, but we aren't so it isn't.

If there was significant support to change the five pillars to allow original research then I think a site wide poll would be needed.

WereSpielChequers12:21, 12 May 2011

T Think that ORIGINAL RESEARCH SHOULD BE ALLOWED provided that the RESEARCH is BASED ON TRUE FACTS AND COLLOBORATED BY OTHERS.If needed,Site Wide Poll is welcomed. New Ideas which are imaginary,fantasies,illusions and etc. should not be accepted as original research.

VRodrig11010:15, 13 May 2011

agreed

46.208.236.10512:56, 13 May 2011

Sorry, but that's just not going to happen.

Mono16:48, 13 May 2011

hehe well try bringing that up on en.wp Village Pump. Mono is right, that is not going to happen....ever.

Theo1001117:21, 13 May 2011

Actually if Original Research is corroborated by others then we probably do allow it, as long as the corroborators are sufficiently reputable that a peer reviewed journal has reported their work on it. The idea of no Original Research is that we are a Tertiary source, if you have made a new discovery and wish to publish it on Wikipedia then whilst we may be very flattered to be offered a scoop, such things are better left to the News media.

WereSpielChequers21:12, 15 May 2011
 
 
 

That depends. The No Original Research-policy has nothing to do with research. If an idea is recent it depends on the support with reliable sources. What is not allowed is really new/original stuff (whether research is involved or not) that is, not supported by reliable sources. So it all comes down to sources/references. - Brya 05:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Brya05:27, 14 May 2011
 

Only reliable sources can tell you what is real and what is fantasy. Otherwise a lot of people will tell you: "This is real, I guarantee!" and the replies would be "Not, it's not!", "Yes it is!", "No it's not!", etc. and there would be no way to decide who is right. If you have new ideas, get them published in peer-reviewed, print-published scientific journals. Wikipedia is not a substitute for peer review.

Tgeorgescu14:03, 14 May 2011
 

Secondary research is allowed in Wikiversity. Source: Wikiversity

So if the Idea has no source but you can infer it using existing sources, then (unless the idea is wrong) You can eventually prove it on Wikiversity.

If it is actually a little original, you can publish it in a journal, and link to it from Wikipedia.

Saeed.Veradi08:53, 10 August 2011
 
 
 
 

If we wish to move forward as scholars and historians we must accept new ideas generated through independent research. That is to say that Wikipedia eventually will have to undergo a schism where one encyclopedia will be dedicated to verified facts and become more and more reliable and the other will be more experimental and avant-garde if you will, the middle ground usually represents the advancement of human knowledge, progress.

76.194.239.16505:55, 15 May 2011

I agree to your suggestions. Inorder to move forward we must accept Independent Researches provided that their authors are qualified to do so in their own specialty.

Reliable sources SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED ONLY from famous people,institutions,journals and others but also to INDEPENDENT RESEARCHES.

VRodrig11023:59, 16 May 2011

I think too it should not be limited to just a few institutions and independent/original research should be possible. but it still must be peer reviewed. so my idea would be to add original research to some other non-mainspace wikipedia part, where it will be independently reviewed by other registered members of the wikipedia community. when enough members accepted it and not rejected it. it can be used on the main article space, and properly referenced. so what I mean is, that there is a open, wikipedia like, peer review network, which is open to anyone to submit and review. maybe similar to arxive...

Helohe13:33, 19 May 2011
 

Thanks for this,

Wikipedia eventually will have to undergo a schism where one encyclopedia will be dedicated to verified facts and become more and more reliable and the other will be more experimental and avant-garde.

This seems to lead us towards treating WP and WU as two separate-yet-related entities. The first is already quite avant-garde. It has served it's role in establishing a new global institution. I'm a little surprised though, if the aim was to be more inclusive, why WMF wouldn't see social networks (and others) as natural complementary tools which would more encourage people to get involved. This goes to the heart of the need to b inclusive. I don't see tools like e.g. ideascale being used which might offer new viewers a more attactve and intuitive overview of this kind of conversation. That's one issue; so experimenting with other communities & their tools is something I'd encourage. E.g. A google/WMF tie up of some description may be useful.

Re: the other considertion; WU as a more separate entity with different policies (e.g. original research, peer review). I've made a suggestion over at [discussion] which will require an alliance with a group of NRENetwork managers. They are presently talking about confederating their National services. e.g. WP is one service, WU is another. It may be useful to work through aligning the attributes allocated to institutional wikiuni contributors. Eventually, if WU is to be a referenced resource in research and academia, the institutions (via their networks) must provide the credentials. If you want an intro use my username@cols.com.au Simonfj 06:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Simonfj06:51, 9 August 2011
 

Now, you have seen some of the answers. If one thing you should be more obvious than another, it is that the very concept of original research as in the term NOR, is incoherent, poorly defined, and meets with largely ineffectual, counter constructive response. I think I have pointed out somewhere else that in "real" (as in paper) encyclopedias, original research never really was anathema; invited articles often contained unverifiable assertions, which sometimes were wrong, and sometimes were advances in the field. In that connection I mentioned Maxwell's article on "wave theory of light" sometime in the late 19th century. It is all very well saying that such things belong in the technical journals, but we do not live in a universe split into technical journals and the rest of the world. Also, the sheer interest, excitement if you like, of finding material that may be novel, original, or creative in Wikipedia is likely to be more of an attraction than a basis for derogation.

Some of us have been saying that original research should be permitted as long as the perpetrator is a recognized authority. Nonsense, I say! In science, and ideally in other nontrivial disciplines, there is no such thing as a Pope. The criterion should be non-triviality, not infallibility. The nearest I have come to finding anything like a meaningful criterion for original research in Wikipedia so far, has been some vague idea that material is acceptable as long as the reader can look up the citations given, and find that someone somewhere, presumably someone reliable because what he said is in print, (HA HA!) Has said something of the type before. In fact, we are not supposed to cut and paste nontrivial source material into Wikipedia which implies that if we are to convey any sense into our articles, we have to do some creation, some synthesis, at least. I personally have already bad experiences with an admin who seemed to think that long words constituted original research.

What I strongly, passionately if you like, feel is that there should be no restriction on opinion or research at all, except for peer or reader challenge. The normal challenges of vandalism by bots or marshals should certainly be continued, perhaps with a more transparent, possibly faster, ombudsman facility, but that is all. The original research problem has very little to do with vermin of that variety. A slightly more difficult problem is the question of non notability, quackery and fringe science, inappropriate advertisement, etc.. For such things, other current mechanisms probably are more or less adequate, and possibly even satisfactory. Most such things after all are based on common sense and good will.

But what about matters of technical substance, where either I make an assertion as an expert in a field, possibly of something new, or possibly of a truism that happens not to be easily verifiable by citation, or as an intelligent layman, I recount an observation. Any such contribution might be valuable, whether at face value or in some other context.

There are a few possible consequences.

Firstly no one might challenge such a statement, simply because it looks good (and presumably In such a case it usually would in fact be good).

Secondly, someone might in fact challenge it. If the author retracts, which well he might, it might after all have been a simple error or even a typo, end of problem. Same as at present.

Thirdly, the author might admit that he could not produce verification, because what he had been describing was an unusual observation, not to be repeated on demand. This sort of thing happens all the time, and I could weary you with examples. And yet such examples could be of great value to intelligent readers, with a qualified or not. To suppose otherwise would be to exhibit a severe misunderstanding, both of the role and nature of observation, and of formal research. In fact in formal research, there are well established conventions for dealing with such observations (pers. ob.) etc. When such observations are properly observed, there is no difficulty about allegations of acceptability, or about contradiction, with proper observation of the civilities of course.

Naturally one gets cases, either where there is flat contradiction and rigid disagreement. When this happens they are a few possibilities, variously acceptable, partly depending on the circumstances.

One possibility is to ask the warring parties, plus any other participants with opinions, please to come to some agreement as soon as might be. More often than not, but should suffice. If it does not, then participants or Wikipedia authorities could have recourse to external opinions as appropriate. In such a matter there is no blame attached if they elect either to omit the entire body of material or to accept the prevailing view.


However there is yet another possibility, which I have not seen in Wikipedia yet, and which I think would be valuable. When we have a situation in which, to recall an old expression, doctors disagree, there would be a great deal to be said, either for having separate sections in the same article, or separate articles linking conspicuously to each other, each giving one view. If appropriate and both parties agree, there could be a shared, or independent, review of the prevailing status of the matter. Such material is out of sight more valuable than sterile restriction to established and incontrovertible doctrine. By way of example, consider the EPR/Bohr hidden variable controversy in its day; to wait for it to be resolved before publishing anything would be a great disservice to the user.

Well, of course, I could continue in this vein as long as most of us, but I do beg everyone wedded to the NOR policy in whatever form they understand it, to think and rethink before it leads to too much harm.

Cheers,

JonRichfield09:25, 17 May 2011

As to this last suggestion, also see this proposal.

BTW: the statement "Firstly no one might challenge such a statement, simply because it looks good (and presumably In such a case it usually would in fact be good)." looks counterintuitive. I have found time and again that an general and accurate statement will be attacked and replaced by a detailed, but wrong statement. On Wikipedia there is a general hatred for precision and a predilection for detail. If it looks detailed it must be true, even if very little checking shows it to be wrong. - Brya 10:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Brya10:24, 17 May 2011
 

I wonder if you bothered to read http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Publishing_original_research before advocating the case of original research.

Tgeorgescu23:50, 25 May 2011
 

Never going to happen, and for good reason. It's usually the most unscientific, ideological, or self-promoting editors who have the patience to scream "it's true!" until they're blue in the face. And if original research is allowed, who are you to tell them they're wrong? If you don't have a reference, truth is measured by popularity and zeal, and the encyclopedia is stupider for it.

So far, the only way to be able to settle disputes about truth has been to verify it in a source of sufficient reliability.

If you want to advance the pool of knowledge, write a paper and get it published in an academic journal.

Randomran13:14, 15 August 2011