User:Jon Awbrey/TEXTEP

From Textop Wiki

Contents 1 Text Evolution Project (Textep) 2 Text Evolution Process (TEP) 3 Evolving Text Analysis (ETA) 3.1 Pattern 0. Text Evolution Schema (TES) 3.2 Example 1. ETA of WP:NOR Policy

Text Evolution Project (Textep)

Text Evolution Process (TEP)

Evolving Text Analysis (ETA)

Pattern 0. Text Evolution Schema (TES)

Text Evolution Schema

Datapoint	Theme 1	Theme 2	Theme 3
t1	11	12	13
t2	21	22	23
t3	31	32	33

Example 1. ETA of WP:NOR Policy

Historical Datapoints for WP:NOR

Data Point	Primary and Secondary Sources
2003
Dec 2003	Revision as of 15:15, 21 December 2003; Tarquin Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" scientific theories. From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales: If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides. If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
2004
Feb 2004	Revision as of 00:27, 6 February 2004; Reddi Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" scientific theories. From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales: If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides. If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. For scientific theories: (a) state the valid concepts (b) state the known and popular ideas and identify general scientific "consensus" (c) individual ideas (eg. stuff made up) should goto 'votes for deletion' (because "failing the test of confirmability" (not for being false)).
Mar 2004	Revision as of 13:24, 25 March 2004; Snowdog Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" theories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question. Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source (one that generalizes existing research or secondary sources of a specific subject under consideration). A Wikipedia entry is a report not an essay. From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name "prominent" adherents (ed. An article should address the controversy without taking sides). If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancilliary article), regardless if it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not. For theories: State the valid concepts, State the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", and Individual ideas (eg. stuff made up) should either go to 'votes for deletion' (because "failing the test of confirmability" (not for being false)) or be copyedited out. The following are NOT grounds for exclusion: Listing claims which have little or no supporting evidence; Listing claims which contradict established conditions, explanations, or solutions; Including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results; or Citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible).
May 2004	Revision as of 15:57, 10 May 2004; 24.8.193.105 Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" theories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question. Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source (one that generalizes existing research or secondary sources of a specific subject under consideration). A Wikipedia entry is a report not an essay. From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name "prominent" adherents (ed. An article should address the controversy without taking sides). If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancilliary article), regardless if it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not. For theories: State the valid concepts, State the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", and Individual ideas (eg. stuff made up) should either go to 'votes for deletion' (because "failing the test of confirmability" (not for being false)) or be copyedited out. The following are NOT grounds for exclusion: Listing claims which have little or no supporting evidence; Listing claims which contradict established conditions, explanations, or solutions; Including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results; or Citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible).
Aug 2004	Revision as of 19:19, 3 August 2004; Hyacinth Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" theories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question. Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source (one that generalizes existing research or secondary sources of a specific subject under consideration). A Wikipedia entry is a report not an essay. Please cite sources. From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name "prominent" adherents (ed. An article should address the controversy without taking sides). If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancilliary article), regardless if it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not (ed. A polite rational discussion in the Talk space is probably the way to settle this). For theories: State the valid concepts, State the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", and Individual ideas (eg. stuff made up) should either go to 'votes for deletion' (because "failing the test of confirmability" (not for being false)) or be copyedited out. The following are NOT grounds for exclusion: Listing claims which have little or no supporting evidence; Listing claims which contradict established conditions, explanations, or solutions; Including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results; or Citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible).
Sep 2004
Oct 2004
Nov 2004
Dec 2004
2005
Jan 2005
Feb 2005
Mar 2005
Apr 2005
May 2005
Jun 2005
Jul 2005
Aug 2005
Sep 2005
Oct 2005
Nov 2005
Dec 2005
2006
Jan 2006
Feb 2006
Mar 2006
Apr 2006
May 2006
Jun 2006
Jul 2006
Aug 2006	Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.