5 ms·

Yep. Wikipedia rejects primary sources as a matter of policy. No original research means that the only "legitimate" content can be secondary or tertiary. Mistak

Yep. Wikipedia rejects primary sources as a matter of policy. No original research means that the only "legitimate" content can be secondary or tertiary. Mistakes can't be corrected by people in a position to know the truth- whatever information must be published somewhere first. This is completely backward from how quality content must normally be created.

Uchikoma 15y ago
Yes. And it even means that tabloids are legitimate sources, but science papers published on a university website are not.
- baddox 15y ago
  Who says that science papers on a university website are not valid sources?
  - Uchikoma 15y ago
    "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention."
    - ErrantX 15y ago
      Tabloids aren't considered a good source. As to "science papers published on a university website", that all depends. I remember a few months ago that one joyous postgrad student was hosting a pretty off-the-wall theory on his personal university space and trying to get it into Wikipedia as "published by the university". On the other hand properly peer reviewed papers get used all the time/
      - Uchikoma 15y ago
        I'm not enough into american culture to decide if a daily tabloid is a "newspaper[s]" or not. Taking the biggest German tabloid "BILD", although I do not endorse their way or content, I'd classify them as a (bad) newspaper nevertheless.
        ErrantX 15y ago
        This is why the word Tabloid is problematic :) because in the UK it means "trashy newspaper", whereas in other places it means the format. Clearly tabloid, in whatever meaning, is a newspaper. But what you have quoted is a nutshell summary. I can see how one reading of it could be that newspapers are always a reliable source (and as tabloids are a form of newspaper). But I have feeling you've seriously stretched the reading to prove a point. Reliable sourcing is linked; and if you read that policy it will make it more clear. FWIW I never like labelling sources, as some editors tend to, in certain categories (newspaper, journal, etc.) because our policy explicitly sets out criteria to apply to sources on an individual basis. So in that respect, I agree with you that the nutshell is a problem.
baddox 15y ago
> This is completely backward from how quality content must normally be created. It's precisely how content for encyclopedias are generally created. Encyclopedias are compilations and summaries of information about a variety of topics, not compilations of original research by experts from a variety of fields.
- ZenPsycho 15y ago
  The problem may be the encyclopaedia format then. High-school textbooks, traditional encyclopaedias and other printed resources are hardly immune from regurgitating long debunked theories about aerodynamics and Haeckel diagrams.
- Uchikoma 15y ago
  I didn't know that Wikipedia aims to be the web clone of Britannica. I thought it aspired for more. Yahoo tried to replicate business directories on and for the web, Google did not.
  - baddox 15y ago
    You're being a bit unfair. Wikipedia does have a goal, and ignoring other valid goals is not really a valid criticism. Wikipedia doesn't strive, for example, to end poverty or cure cancer. Their goal is to build the best and most freely available encyclopedia. You just seem to have an issue with what an encyclopedia inherently is, so I suppose Wikipedia becoming the best instance of an encyclopedia doesn't appeal to you.
nmridul 15y ago
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a research journal. An encyclopedia is more like a dictionary. I cannot just add a word to a dictionary just because my colleagues and me thinks its a great word and we use it often or because we are great in our own field.
ErrantX 15y ago
No; although a lot of editors do tend to reject them out of hand without actually reading the policy (this really annoys me). Nothing actually precludes using a primary source - so long as it is on a purely factual basis and is not "interpreted"/analysed etc.
william42 15y ago
No original research is because otherwise Wikipedia would be infested with physics cranks.

Uchikoma 15y ago

Yes. And it even means that tabloids are legitimate sources, but science papers published on a university website are not.

baddox 15y ago
Who says that science papers on a university website are not valid sources?
- Uchikoma 15y ago
  "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention."
  - ErrantX 15y ago
    Tabloids aren't considered a good source. As to "science papers published on a university website", that all depends. I remember a few months ago that one joyous postgrad student was hosting a pretty off-the-wall theory on his personal university space and trying to get it into Wikipedia as "published by the university". On the other hand properly peer reviewed papers get used all the time/
    - Uchikoma 15y ago
      I'm not enough into american culture to decide if a daily tabloid is a "newspaper[s]" or not. Taking the biggest German tabloid "BILD", although I do not endorse their way or content, I'd classify them as a (bad) newspaper nevertheless.
      - ErrantX 15y ago
        This is why the word Tabloid is problematic :) because in the UK it means "trashy newspaper", whereas in other places it means the format. Clearly tabloid, in whatever meaning, is a newspaper. But what you have quoted is a nutshell summary. I can see how one reading of it could be that newspapers are always a reliable source (and as tabloids are a form of newspaper). But I have feeling you've seriously stretched the reading to prove a point. Reliable sourcing is linked; and if you read that policy it will make it more clear. FWIW I never like labelling sources, as some editors tend to, in certain categories (newspaper, journal, etc.) because our policy explicitly sets out criteria to apply to sources on an individual basis. So in that respect, I agree with you that the nutshell is a problem.

baddox 15y ago

> This is completely backward from how quality content must normally be created. It's precisely how content for encyclopedias are generally created. Encyclopedias are compilations and summaries of information about a variety of topics, not compilations of original research by experts from a variety of fields.

ZenPsycho 15y ago
The problem may be the encyclopaedia format then. High-school textbooks, traditional encyclopaedias and other printed resources are hardly immune from regurgitating long debunked theories about aerodynamics and Haeckel diagrams.
Uchikoma 15y ago
I didn't know that Wikipedia aims to be the web clone of Britannica. I thought it aspired for more. Yahoo tried to replicate business directories on and for the web, Google did not.
- baddox 15y ago
  You're being a bit unfair. Wikipedia does have a goal, and ignoring other valid goals is not really a valid criticism. Wikipedia doesn't strive, for example, to end poverty or cure cancer. Their goal is to build the best and most freely available encyclopedia. You just seem to have an issue with what an encyclopedia inherently is, so I suppose Wikipedia becoming the best instance of an encyclopedia doesn't appeal to you.

nmridul 15y ago

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a research journal. An encyclopedia is more like a dictionary. I cannot just add a word to a dictionary just because my colleagues and me thinks its a great word and we use it often or because we are great in our own field.

ErrantX 15y ago

No; although a lot of editors do tend to reject them out of hand without actually reading the policy (this really annoys me). Nothing actually precludes using a primary source - so long as it is on a purely factual basis and is not "interpreted"/analysed etc.

william42 15y ago

No original research is because otherwise Wikipedia would be infested with physics cranks.