User:Jon Awbrey/TEXTEP

• Revision as of 15:15, 21 December 2003; Tarquin

1. Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" scientific theories.
2. From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales:
   1. If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
   2. 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.
   3. 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.
   4. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

• Revision as of 00:27, 6 February 2004; Reddi

1. Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" scientific theories.
2. From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales:
   1. If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
   2. 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.
   3. 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.
   4. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
3. For scientific theories:
   1. (a) state the valid concepts
   2. (b) state the known and popular ideas and identify general scientific "consensus"
   3. (c) individual ideas (eg. stuff made up) should goto 'votes for deletion' (because "failing the test of confirmability" (not for being false)).

• Revision as of 13:24, 25 March 2004; Snowdog

1. Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" theories.
2. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
3. Specific factual content is not the question.
4. 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).
5. A Wikipedia entry is a report not an essay.
6. From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales:
   1. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
   2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name "prominent" adherents
   3. (ed. An article should address the controversy without taking sides).
   4. 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.
7. For theories:
   1. State the valid concepts,
   2. State the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", and
   3. 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.
8. The following are NOT grounds for exclusion:
   1. Listing claims which have little or no supporting evidence;
   2. Listing claims which contradict established conditions, explanations, or solutions;
   3. Including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results; or
   4. Citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible).

• Revision as of 15:57, 10 May 2004; 24.8.193.105

1. Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" theories.
2. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
3. Specific factual content is not the question.
4. 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).
5. A Wikipedia entry is a report not an essay.
6. From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales:
   1. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
   2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name "prominent" adherents
   3. (ed. An article should address the controversy without taking sides).
   4. 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.
7. For theories:
   1. State the valid concepts,
   2. State the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", and
   3. 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.
8. The following are NOT grounds for exclusion:
   1. Listing claims which have little or no supporting evidence;
   2. Listing claims which contradict established conditions, explanations, or solutions;
   3. Including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results; or
   4. Citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible).

• Revision as of 19:19, 3 August 2004; Hyacinth

1. Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" theories.
2. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
3. Specific factual content is not the question.
4. 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).
5. A Wikipedia entry is a report not an essay.
6. Please cite sources.
7. From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales:
   1. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
   2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name "prominent" adherents
   3. (ed. An article should address the controversy without taking sides).
   4. 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
   5. (ed. A polite rational discussion in the Talk space is probably the way to settle this).
8. For theories:
   1. State the valid concepts,
   2. State the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", and
   3. 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.
9. The following are NOT grounds for exclusion:
   1. Listing claims which have little or no supporting evidence;
   2. Listing claims which contradict established conditions, explanations, or solutions;
   3. Including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results; or
   4. Citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible).

• Revision as of 15:01, 5 September 2004; Wereon

1. Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" theories (Wikisource is).
2. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
3. Specific factual content is not the question.
4. 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).
5. A Wikipedia entry is a report not an essay.
6. Please cite sources.
7. From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales:
   1. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
   2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name "prominent" adherents
   3. (ed. An article should address the controversy without taking sides).
   4. 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
   5. (ed. A polite rational discussion in the Talk page or "votes for deletion" is probably the way to settle this).
8. For theories:
   1. State the valid concepts,
   2. State the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", and
   3. Individual ideas (eg. stuff made up) and unstable neologisms should either go to 'votes for deletion' (because they "fail the test of confirmability" (not because they are false)), or be copyedited out.
9. The following are NOT grounds for exclusion:
   1. Listing claims which have little or no supporting evidence;
   2. Listing claims which contradict established conditions, explanations, or solutions;
   3. Including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results; or
   4. Citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible).

• Revision as of 20:38, 7 October 2004; UninvitedCompany

1. Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" theories (Wikisource is).
2. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
3. Specific factual content is not the question.
4. 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).
5. A Wikipedia entry is a report, not an essay.
6. Please cite sources.

What is research and what is not

• A wikipedia entry counts as research if it proposes ideas, that is:

1. It introduces a theory of method of solution;
2. It introduces original ideas;
3. It defines terms; or
4. It introduces neologisms.

• However all of the above constitute acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape, for example if:

1. The ideas have been accepted for publication in a normal peer reviewed journal; or
2. The ideas have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently documented in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).
3. If you have a great idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is wikipedia, the best approach is to publish your results in a good peer-reviewed journals, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

Classifying viewpoints by appropriateness

• From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales:

1. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name "prominent" adherents
3. (ed. An article should address the controversy without taking sides).
4. 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
5. (ed. A polite rational discussion in the Talk page or "votes for deletion" is probably the way to settle this).

How to deal with wikipedia entries about theories

• For theories:

1. State the key concepts,
2. State the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", making clear which is which, and
3. Individual ideas (eg. stuff made up) and unstable neologisms should either go to 'votes for deletion' (because they "fail the test of confirmability" (not because they are false)), or be copyedited out.

What should not be excluded

• The following are NOT grounds for exclusion:

1. Listing claims which have little or no supporting evidence;
2. Listing claims which contradict established conditions, explanations, or solutions;
3. Including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results; or
4. Citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible).

1. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed.
2. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.
3. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources.
4. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
5. 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.