Dear Susan, First, the official position: One reason is because one's original research for a WP or CZ article hasn't yet been published & is therefore uncitable & not yet peer-reviewed (If it's been published somewhere, then it is OK to use it).
Although we are planning some sort of peer-review on CZ (& it exists on WP, if invoked), its works our differently for a secondary review and for original research--for primary research you generally need people who are equally knowledgeable in the exact same specific narrow topic as the research, for secondary you need people who are expert in the general field. I've run into this myself in the RW, when wanting to include unpublished calculations in a review article, to draw a conclusion different from that of the person who published the data. Second, my take on it: The standards on the WP:NOR are totally unrealistic, and if applied literally would condemn many of the good articles. e.g.: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article". & the example following it. Furthermore, much of the good WP material is based on personal knowledge, which in theory requires a published sources as well, but often does not have one. A good deal of the technical material requires some (trivial) research. Some one put in some entries for new search engines in WP the other day, and if I cannot find any actual examples on the web I will remove them. I think it is assumed in most of the discussion that CZ will not be limited to reporting the accept published positions, but to synthesize the overall state of understanding, based on such cited sources , and on other secondary publications as well. It's a matter of extent: if I have a new hypothesis on, say, Trotsky's motivations, CZ isn't the place to present it properly. If I can connect what he has been published as saying on different days to draw a conclusion, it should be OK. The calculations I referred to were based on public sources, but the editor was right, they were contentious enough to require review, and I should have put it somewhere where it would be criticized in the usual way for the material (and a good listserv is in my subject an accepted usual way). But I also added up some published numbers and put in the total, and review articles do that all the time. That' was OK. As a personal synthesis, it depends on the material. I have noticed a refreshing trend in WP recently in discussion of articles proposed for deletion, where people have been saying. "Don't base this only on the citation of the published rules, is it a good article?" --David Goodman On 10/18/06, Susan Awbrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David and All: > I certainly agree that citing a primary source is not research and that it > should be allowed in articles that claim verifiability and accuracy. > However, I'm not sure why original research has been banned? First, I ask > this because I thought CZ was going to be different from WP and it looks > like we are recreating the same thing. Second, if the goal truly is to > allow as free an interchange as possible and CZ is going to have expert > editors, why limit what can be posted? Guess if I take the open environment > concept of CZ to heart I would believe that all levels of articles (from > high school through post doctorate) as well as all source levels of articles > should be allowed....Why not, would be my question...what will it harm and > it actually could add to both the learning and user mix. Susan > > > > At 09:08 PM 10/17/2006 -0400, David Goodman wrote: > > I think I agree, > From the WP policy page: > WP is not: > Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, > original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done > primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as > peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and > Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted > knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from > peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is > reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web > resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the > editor's opinion. > > This accepts most of what has been discussed as appropriate for WP, and it > is for us too. > Relying on original research articles is secondary research. Citing a > original document is not necessarily research. > > The "best " source depends on the purpose. The best source to verify a fact > or a date, is usually a reliable secondary or tertiary source. OED for > example is a secondary source, but few of us would usually try to verify the > examples. OED is scholarly because it is not a tertiary source; it is not > prepared from other dictionaries. But for checking spelling do we always use > the OED? > > > > > > > On 10/17/06, Zachary Pruckowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In my opinion (and I'm not in charge, obviously), the issue with CZ as a > source in a paper isn't accuracy or prevalence of references. While an > approved CZ article will be well written, accurate, and well referenced and > cited and overall wonderful, there are some cases where it's not the best > source. There exist lots of cases where CZ articles will be trustworthy > references, certainly more cases than CZ articles. > > Here's a demo of what I'm talking about: > > Event X occurs (whether it's an experiment or a historical battle or > whatever doesn't matter) > Person A observes the event, or collects data on the event and publishes it > (PubA1). Others conduct similar experiments or write similar accounts of > Event X (PubA2...An) (all of these are primary sources) > Person B reads PubA1, PubA2, etc, and comments on them in another paper or > a book (PubB1...PubBn) (secondary sources) > Person C writes [[Event X]]. He/she can draw on all the PubAs and all the > PubBs. That makes us at best a secondary source, and more likely a tertiary > source. > > Because of the "No Original Research" rule, no CZ article can ever be a > primary source. In a lot of settings, people writing research papers should > be referring to only primary and secondary sources, since they are > essentially creating a secondary source (combining accounts, comparing and > contrasting to analyze events and uncovering trends). Therefore a tertiary > source isn't the best way to go. In a lot of circumstances, that doesn't > matter, and CZ would then make a great resource. There is a proposal (on > the forums) to host primary and secondary source papers in much the same way > that Wikimedia Commons hosts free images. There is no way to keep the "No > Original Research" rule and have Citizendium (CZ) be a primary or secondary > source. > > Zach Pruckowski > > > On Oct 17, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Susan Awbrey wrote: > > > Hi, > I think Christoph meant to send this to the list. Susan > > > Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:24:45 -0400 > From: "Wildgruber, Christoph U." < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [Citizendium-l] Encyclopedia > > Dear All, > > I was going to ask almost exactely the same question! > Now I haven't been very active contributing to this list > but trust me, I am reading a lot of what all of you are > saying and I am really excited about trying to do it right > this time. > > As a scientist doing neutron beam experiments > for more than 20 years I am sure looking forward to use > Citizendium for my work as well as I do plan to contribute > with the (narrow) field of my expertise. > > When I read Zachary's email I had almost exactely the same > thought's Susan had. Citizendium is supposed to do better > than Wikipedia and as far as I remember the comparison > 'Nature' did between the Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia > came up with a suprisingly good result for Wikipedia. > While this may not be true in all areas I can imagine it's true for > many scientific topics. > > I think Citizendium has to aim at a higher goal and > I have read many good suggestions and ideas from all of you > how to achieve this. > > I just want to quickly give you a short list of objectives which I consider > essential for the success of Citizendium in the bigger pictures. > > 1) If I use encyclopedic information for a (e.g.) professional presentation > I want to feel comfortable to use 'Citizendium' as a source and don't > want to have the urge to cross check with a conventional encyclopædia > (Information like that can be pretty basic but it needs to be formal, > correct and deep enough) > > 2) Like conventional encyclopædias everybody who can read should be > able to use it. If an article uses language which I am not familiar > with > I keep reading other articles until I know enough of what I want to > know. > I agree this does sometimes require extra effort but it also gives > a real opportunity to learn something new. > > 3) References should be plenty, stable and cover different aspect of a > subject. > (I remember that years ago when I got a brand new encyclopædia I was > dissappointed when I realized that - compared to the previous edition - > many articles had much fewer references, probably to save space) > > What I really want to say with all that is that I completely agree with > Susan and my guess is that she absolutely right concerning her assumptions > who will be interested in contributing to this wonderful project. > > Hope I didn't waste your time... > > Christoph > > > Christoph U. Wildgruber > VISION Scientist > ORNL-SNS > Oak Ridge, TN > 865-574-5378 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of > Susan Awbrey > Sent: Tue 17-Oct-06 8:15 > To: [email protected] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Citizendium-l] Encyclopedia > > Good Morning, > Zach's response to the encyclopedia question raises several questions for > me -- If we are creating an encyclopedia for high school educated people, > why are we doing that if Wikipedia already exists? What will be different > about citizendium? Will that charge be the best to attract a different > type of participant than Wikipedia (i.e., academics or experts) to assist > wtih the project? Susan > > Dr. Susan M. Awbrey > Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education > 520 O'Dowd Hall > Oakland University > Rochester, Michigan 48309 > Phone: 248-370-2188 > Fax: 248-370-2589 > Dr. Susan M. Awbrey > Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education > 520 O'Dowd Hall > Oakland University > Rochester, Michigan 48309 > Phone: 248-370-2188 > Fax: 248-370-2589 > _______________________________________________ > Citizendium-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l > > _______________________________________________ > Citizendium-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l > > > > > -- > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > _______________________________________________ > Citizendium-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l > > Dr. Susan M. Awbrey > Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education > 520 O'Dowd Hall > Oakland University > Rochester, Michigan 48309 > Phone: 248-370-2188 > Fax: 248-370-2589 -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
