All the Good Ones
Wikipedia:Making Things Up
Official Cabal Decree
My new favorites
- WP:TRUTH
- Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
- Hanlon's razor -- so applicable, in so many cases.
Wikipedia:Not Evil
- Sometimes it is, but it shouldn't be See Wikipedia:NOT evil
- Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
Tagmania
{{primarysources}} {{unencyclopedic}}
Prod sample
{{[remove this before posting]dated prod|concern = lacks citations, non notable conspiracy, POV|month = May|day = 20|year = 2006}}
Tenditious Editing
- Another one for the ages -- see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing or WP:TE for short.
- WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND
Protecting Children
Votes Are Not Permanent
WP:NBD or Wikipedia:Consensus can change is official Wikipedia policy that prior Afds/surveys/polls are not permanently binding, as new consensus may develop with respect to articles and issues.
These Are Nice
Keep
Delete
Merge
Reliability of blogs
Wiki policies currently describe two conflicting rules for blogs. (1) The WP:V subsection self-published sources states that blogs from recognized experts may be used as secondary sources, while (2) the WP:V subsectionself-published sources in articles about themselves and WP:RS each say that blogs are never appropriate as secondary sources.
Dubious Sources: From WP:RS
"Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." [1]
A subset on how "connecting the dots" violates Wikipedia's rule against no original research
See [2], quoted in its entirety below.
Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position
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.
An example from a Wikipedia article (note that the article is about Jones, not about plagiarism in general):
Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism in Jones's Flower-Arranging: The Real Story by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, saying he is guilty only of good scholarly practice because he gave citations for the references he had learned about in the other book.
So far, so good. Now comes the new synthesis of published material:
If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
This entire paragraph is original research, because it is the editor's own synthesis of published material serving to advance his definition and opinion of plagiarism and whether Jones committed it. The editor is citing good sources about best practice (Chicago Manual of Style and Harvard's student writing manual). In an article about plagiarism, some of the points he makes might be acceptable, so long as he provided links or citations to the sources.
But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion.
For this paragraph to be acceptable in the article about Jones, the editor would have to find a reliable source who had commented on the Smith and Jones dispute and who had himself made the point that: "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style..." and so on. That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (official policy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ (official policy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability (official policy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research (official policy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not (official policy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories (content guideline)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith (official policy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources (guideline)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources (guideline)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources (style guide)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons (official policy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines (guideline)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links (guideline)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiProject_Taxation_articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_federal_taxation_legislation
Undue weight, and significant viewpoints published by reliable sources
"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." from [3] on 3 October 2006.
The relationship between citation of sources and the Wikipedia rule about original research
"Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article and to adhere to what those sources say." from [4] on 5 October 2006.
More about research
"Research that creates primary sources is not allowed. All articles in 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. Articles which draw predominantly on primary sources are generally discouraged, in favor of articles based predominantly on secondary sources. [paragr. break] Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." Copied from [5] on 8 January 2007.
Minority views
"[T]he Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth." from [6] on 3 October 2006.
A bit about fringe theories
Articles which cover hypotheses in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of acceptance among the relevant academic community of the hypothesis. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of a hypothesis's standing, it should be assumed that the hypothesis has not received consideration or acceptance. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection; hypotheses should not be portrayed as rejected [ . . . ] unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources.
Hypotheses which have been rejected, which are widely considered to be absurd [ . . . ] should be documented as such. Copied from [7] on 8 January 2007.
Reliability and self-published materials
“Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
“Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.” Copied from [8] on 3 October 2006
"A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Copied from [9] on 5 October 2006.
On false authority
“Look out for false claims of authority. Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. Web sites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable. The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web.
“Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject. In general, higher education textbooks are frequently revised and try to be authoritative. Textbooks aimed at secondary-school students, however, do not try to be authoritative and are subject to political approval.” Copied from [10] on 3 October 2006.
Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence
"Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim. [ . . . . ] Claims not supported[,] or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." Copied from [11] on 5 October 2006.
How to determine whether a view is established
The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research because there may be a lack of sufficiently credible, third-party, published sources to back it up.
From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder:
- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it 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;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Copied from [12] on 9 October 2006.
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published. Please do not use Wikipedia for [ . . . ]:
Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
Copied from [13] on 6 December 2006.
Expertise
"[ . . . ] Wikipedia should report all major points of views; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses.
"One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:
"* The reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works
- Whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones
- Whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms
- Whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims
"[ . . . ] If you are not an expert in a subject yourself, your intuition that an article is biased may not be reliable. [ . . . ] Points of view held as having little credibility by experts [ . . . ] should be reported, but as such: that is, we should expose the point of view and its popular appeal, but also the opinion held by the vast majority of experts." Copied from [14] on 18 November 2006 (bolding added).
Links normally to be avoided
"In addition to the restrictions on linking, and except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid:
[ . . . ]
- Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.
- Links mainly intended to promote a website.
- Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
[ . . . ]
- Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
[ . . . ]"
Copied on 12 December 2006 from[15]
Other
A guideline:
"Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV), instead of supporting one over another, even if you believe something strongly. The Talk ("discussion") pages are not a place to debate value judgments about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis. Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy." Copied from [16] on 20 October 2006.