Wikiversity talk:Original research

Archives: 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010

Template
I just created the template announcing original research on the page. This is the first draft, feel free to comment and modify. Usage original research or as a shortcut or --Gbaor 17:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think something like the template to the right would be better. I think a research template shouldn't try to distinguish between primary and secondary research. -- dark lama  17:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I modified the template slightly. Maybe a smaller box would be nicer. On the other hand it should be very clear for the visitor, that s/he reads a research oriented page. We can still achieve a similar result, if we insist to put the smaller box to the top of the research page. Btw. I thought there should be a clear distinction also between primary and secondary research in the templates (but it is also true, that often there can be a mix of primary and secondary research, so the present wording of the template is maybe better...) --Gbaor 17:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * People's eyes tend to focus on the part of the page with the most perceived area/spaced used. Make the box too big and that can be distracting. People should be able to quickly glance at the box without being distracted by it for too long. I think people often do both primary and secondary research, and don't really put too much energy/thought as to when they have transitioned from one form of research to another, they just do it. Basically we should take a "no big deal" and "be bold" approach to doing research. The example I used provides a quick summary of what the research intends to answer, which also is self explanatory that this is some form of research. -- dark lama  18:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a mixture of the two might be better. The first version of original research made it plain that it is original research and the template is of a size and clarity that makes the original research message unmistakable. The makes plain the subject of the research. Researchers need to be bold and proud of their original contributions. Readers and students, on the other hand, need to be aware that what they are reading is original research and is not verified or conventionally verifiable. Most well executed secondary research will, by convention, have lists of sources and references to back it up. The fact that original research is permitted should not mean that is is any less rigorous in its execution or presentation on Wikiversity. It should be stuff that we feel proud to present to the world not stuff that we want to disguise.--Harkey 19:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree people should be proud of the research they do. I think using a big box is like adding a lot of bells and whistles. People may pay attention for the wrong reasons. I know I wouldn't want to use the big box for any research I do. I would want my research to speak for itself and would want to be able to be proud that people found the work enjoyable without having to be drawn in by some fancy bells and whistle. I wouldn't be proud if people thought that originality was the most important aspect of the page, because to me that would be missing the point in having done the research. To me being able to glean new knowledge or understanding from the research would be what makes the research most worthwhile. I think a big box would disguise that. -- dark lama  20:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also thought about a similar thing as Darklama, namely the "bells and whistles"... It might happen, that somebody see the template and may think, that the author tries to push through some questionable research, because it is permitted here, but not on WP. The point is, that we have to mark the research pages some way, with a template. But nobody said that there should be a single template for everybody. What I suggest, is to agree about the minimum requirements for this template, and then we can suggest a few. Of course I am not saying to have a templ. for each project, but lets say one saying "original research", one saying "secondary research", maybe another one saying "primary and secondary research" (+ the small version for all of them). And everybody may choose.
 * According to me all templates 1. should link to Original research and 2. automatically categorize the page to a specific cat. (the upper cat. should be something else than Category:Original research because the secondary research does not fit here...) What do you think? --Gbaor 18:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there are other possibilities besides a template worth exploring. Why not create a Research: namespace and require all research be done in that namespace? How about requiring all research be categorized in Category:Research or a subcategory thereof? Why a template? Do we really even need a way to identify what is and isn't research? I think if there were any problems with figuring out what pages are and aren't research that that would of come up before. Has identifying research projects been a problem for English Wikiversity? Maybe this is driven more by fear that it could become a problem rather than by necessity. -- dark lama  21:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with using a Template approach. Consider my user page, where I have placed a number of original research based papers. If every paper had one of the templates on it, it would look, unprofessional to anyone outside wikiversity. Could there be something more discrete that would look good on papers and be accepted as an alternate label?

 This Project is Original Research done at en.Wikiversity.org

--Graeme E. Smith 14:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think something more discrete and professional is a good idea. I like your proposal, I would just change it a little bit:

 This is a research project at http://en.wikiversity.org


 * -- dark lama  16:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice!

If we made it a template too, then we could trigger the Category as part of the template, and either template would be equivalent.... does that suit?--Graeme E. Smith 16:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Template: Alt original research


 * Yep, I am also for the modified alternative. It looks very nice and practical. If there are no objections, I suggest to: 1. add automatic categorization and some more description for this one similarly as on the first OR template, 2. delete my OR template and move the alternative there (because of the name). --Gbaor 15:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Question: The wording of this template is more generic, saying just "research", not OR, what is fine with me. Should we rename it to research project instead of OR? --Gbaor 15:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I think the template should be named . If people want to be more specific a second optional argument could be add like . Wikiversity is by no means limited to original research. -- dark lama  13:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice, that might also work for ((tlx|research project|Your topic here}}--Graeme E. Smith 00:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Rebuilding WP's guild article
What the production environment most resembles, I found, is the guild of the pre-industrialized era. Guilds, likewise, are often described best in what they are not, as I did on the guild article on WP. The page is very weak, so much so, one editor suggested blanking the page and starting over. I obviously would disagree, as I feel all information is valid, even if it is misconceived. So using article building strategies that I have written about here in Wikiversity Studies, I would create a mirror page here, and firstly get a discussion going as to what is important in history about guilds; this discussion may likely be with myself, but I would import a variety of material to show different approaches. I would then completely deconstruct the existing page to be able to grock the conceptions of what a guild is to Wikipedians, create a framework from it, and then attempt to prove or disprove the components in the framework. Structure in the new article in terms of the existing defficient article would assure that the new information is presented in terms that Wikipedians could comprehend -- in their terms.

I would then add to, or rearrange, the framework as I became an expert on guilds, and then flesh out all structure with prose. This is how I wrote wiki pages that I submitted as test-case/use-case tech documents in my last Wall Street technology position as a tech writer consultant -- and I got paid well for it! So this kind of knowledge construction it isn't just for constructivsts.--JohnBessatalk 17:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Page protection, ownership and definitions

 * I can see page protection by individual researchers as being inhibiting. Previous revisions of pages are always available as time stamped diffs. They can be referred to and linked to in discussion so maybe page protection is not as necessary as has been assumed. On the other hand it might be useful to freeze a page, by agreement, during a discussion if a content dispute happens.


 * The right of individuals to protect pages seems to be linked to individual ownership of work. On a wiki which is a co-operative endeavor this is problematic. "If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Wikiversity should not be seen as cheap fast fix for getting an individual's work published. If a researcher contributes here it is on the understanding that their work will be subject to review and change by co-operative effort. (There is also a sense in which the majority of contributions to Wikiversity and Wikibooks are original works.)


 * The whole process of producing co-operative Original contributions, from proposal to completed work and review, can be educative and beneficial to all participants. Formal and conventional peer review may not be possible at the moment but works submitted should be open to the normal Wikiversity review process.


 * Might a research proposals page be launched to recruit interested participants to contribute fully and discuss the research from the very start?


 * There is, as mentioned above, a considerable difference between academic disciplines in what can be peer reviewed and improved and how. The term Original research seems to be used on Wikipedia to refer also to Original observation, Original thought and Original work. Do we need to be clearer (but not exclusive) in our definitions? --Harkey 17:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think page protection does inhibit the only form of peer review that Wikiversity really has right now. I think the concept of research ownership does conflict with the free flow of cooperation, collaboration, sharing, and learning. I think if the intent of protection is to protect the integrity of data results like "5 out of 10 apples are good" than why not be specific that it is the research results that should be protected from being changed or misrepresented? I think a page for research discussions and recruitment is a good idea. I think clarity in what is meant is a good idea. -- dark lama  18:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good point, one of the problems I have noticed, is that there is no protected area on Wikiversity except sandbox pages, and sometimes I wonder about sandbox pages, to pare a phrase, in which a paper can be written, and edited without world impact. Once it is written, and published to the Wikiversity community, it is open for editing, but it is also open to the public and to search engines. I have done searches only to find my own work.


 * I think that there needs to be a prepratory period when you get your thoughts together, and start innumerable papers that you might abandon if you lose interest in them, a period when your work is available locally to the Wikiversity community but not to the general public, while it is edited and reviewed, by others in the community, and then some sort of promotion period where it is made available to the greater community via search engines etc.


 * One of the reasons for review, is the concept of Sober Second Thought, (Yes I copped that from the Canadian senate) where an opportunity is given to damp down young enthusiasms in order to reduce the emotional content, and increase the informational content. How many of you that did papers in school gained from the tendency of your advisers to suggest you rewrite the odd paper, when it was less informative than it should be. Do we assume that such a brake on enthusiasm is unneeded here because this is a collaborative site?--Graeme E. Smith 15:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikinews has some kind of process before a news story can be "published". "Published" on wikinews seems to consist of being linked to from relevant pages so people can find it. Maybe something similar could work for Wikiversity? Research not ready to be viewed by the world at large is simply not included in the listing of any schools, portals, or topic pages. If you want to prevent Google from finding it you can add __NOINDEX__ to the page. This could be included as part of a template like:
 * This research is not yet ready for digestion by the general public. __NOINDEX__
 * -- dark lama  17:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Does collaboration necessarily mean that we cannot promote original ideas individually? One of the things that bothers me most about the collaborative process, is that some of the people from Wikipedia are so anti-individualism in their approach. What if there ISN'T enough people interested in a project that they feel the need to collaborate, does the project fail, or can an individual promote it until others join him?


 * The flip side of this, is shouldn't papers that are mono-authored be allowed to have the author control their content? I want to make a difference between the content of "Display pages", which are common property and "papers" which are authored singly, (Because no one else seemed interested at the time, or because the author was an invited expert).


 * I think the intent is that collaboration should be encouraged, but you don't have to go out of your way to find people who are willing to work with you. "If you build it they will come" comes to mind. Just do the research and collaborate with whoever comes along that is interested in the research topic.


 * I think authors do have control while they are the only one working on the research. I think once more people want to work on the research control shifts from author control to group control. I think even after control shifts to group control, the scope of the research should remain as the author intended it, unless there is a really good reason to change the research scope which should require consensus to do. I think once something is added to Wikiversity the copy available on Wikiversity should be considered common property. You can always host a copy on another site which would allow you to maintain author control of the content. You can include a link to an external copy or a specific revision of the page that is free of contributions you don't like and I think that link should be kept out of respect unless there is a really good reason not to. -- dark lama  17:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think there is a grey area between giving up the rights to a page, and giving up interest in the quality of the page. If we don't deal with that distinction then people who have a professional interest in the quality of their own work, will have problems with the media.


 * Making any page on Wikiversity fair game for editing means that archives can't be kept. Locking pages for archives would freeze the page at a snapshot of how that page was at a certain time, which is what makes archives valuable. Yes, the archive copies of the development of the page are kept, but can you guarantee that they will be kept in perpetuity? What happens when the back storage starts to take up petabytes? How do they choose which version to keep and which version to throw away? Why not treat documents more like version control systems, where any document can be forked as long as it has its own unique version number Then the latest version in any one version branch, is the one to keep. Effectively you may have something similar already but there is no way to designate which version you want.--Graeme E. Smith 02:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Today I updated and expanded the background information questions. I added 3 questions which I think might inspire creativity and might provide better results than telling people to follow specific rules:
 * How will people be able to review and critique your research?
 * How do you intend to ensure the integrity of your research?
 * What will do you to ensure the integrity of your research?
 * -- dark lama  14:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

betaversity
This is linked to in the main points: http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Research_guidelines/En - it seems to be very relevant, so just wondering more generally actually how betaversity policy is related to Wikiversity/en policy? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Several comments
Going through this page, I agree with most of it and I like that it does not place additional restrictions on the researchers, aside from their obligation to follow the basic codes of research ethics that would be required anywhere. Where research belongs and how to do it most effectively on this wiki may not be intuitively obvious (many of the new Users I've welcomed didn't seem to understand), so I am wondering if this page could include a large section that essentially offers advice on these topics and orients people to how research on the wiki is organized. I have a couple of thoughts along these lines:
 * 1) Guidelines about where to place research. (These would direct people to the research and topic pages, discuss which pages could be linked to one's research and describe how the purposes of Userspace, Portal space, Topic space etc. are normally distinct from one another.)
 * 2) Statement about how the on-wiki format of research is VERY flexible. From my conversations at the Wikipedia NYC conference back in February, I discovered that many people don't seem to understand just how flexible Wikiversity is in terms of what type of content people are encouraged to add.

Also, I really like Darklama's idea of the Research Template. There's already a Userbox that indicates a resource is research-oriented, but this Template is more obvious on a page. However, I'm not sure that the policy should say that it's required to use this Template for all research. I suspect many people won't see this page in time and such a policy would be impossible to enforce. Perhaps it would be better to say that the template is recommended rather than required, so that people looking for research resources can click on "What links here" in the toolbox to see the research. Certainly, older research resources that are rather inactive (but might become active again if discovered by the right people) won't be using this Template. --AFriedman(talk) 03:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I created Research process some time ago to aid the new researcher that could use some advice. I don't really care for the original research proposal myself because I believe research is a continuous process and I think this proposal is nothing more than a superficial way to say that original research is allowed. Such a statement could easily be a one-liner in What is Wikiversity. I think Wikiversity needs something more helpful for our contributors, hence Research process. -- dark lama  06:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then a link to Wikiversity:Research process and an explanation of its contents should be prominent in this page. May I add that, or do you want to?
 * You may do so. I am not sure how best to include it on this page if it should be at all. There is already a link to it I believe. Really the research process page is also intended to be an alternative to what is here. There are some overlap, some similarity, and some intended differences. -- dark lama  17:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think this policy should have a clause about how research should not be compromising the integrity of any part of Wikiversity or its sister projects, as per the other discussion going on right now. --AFriedman(talk) 17:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I've added a section to that effect. Kaldari 17:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added "Consensual - Inform and ask for consent before involving others in your research. People, groups, and organizations must be willing participants of your research." to Research process with a link to Informed consent. I will undoubtedly rephrase this many times before I am happy with the wording. -- dark lama  17:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethics
The most obvious part lacking in the current draft policy I think is about ethics e.g., human research ethics and animal research ethics. Currently the policy does not require research projects involving human or animal subjects to be approved by either an external or internal ethics review process. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As well, we should discuss the direct involvement of Wikiversity in research with an ethical twist, or the documentation of an intent to research, a topic that has ethical implications or of data from research done in another institute with its own ethics requirements. For instance, I am involved in trying to figure out a protocol for animal experiments. I could not possibly do animal experiments on wikiversity, the experiments would have to be done in an institution with its own Ethical standards, or in a private lab, (with some assumed ethical standards) would discussion of the protocols be an issue of ethics here on Wikiversity?--Graeme E. Smith 15:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A journal to support research?
I'm wondering if anyone has the experience or ideas on how we might create a journal in Wikiversity to support formally peer reviewed work? I wrote up my own ideas on how I think a journal should look these days. Key points were:


 * 1) Anyone can submit an article, and that article is listed on the journal website, and anyone can review the article. There is a formal review process required to achieve featured article status however.
 * 2) The submission, review and communication around that process is openly documented.
 * 3) Once submitted, an article is archived and the link is to that version, but all articles are able to be edited, copied, adapted and otherwise reused beyond that.
 * 4) The primary data used in the formation of an article is also openly available as above, however methods of protecting privacy of subjects would need to devised, and if possible not in such a way so as to render the data inaccessible.

I think a journal inside Wikiversity would strengthen the process and policy of research in WV, and maybe even someday become a recognised journal with "impact factor"... --Leighblackall 21:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see no reason why WV shouldn't be looking to host journals, conference proceedings, and recorded presentations (within scope). Maybe this could be pursued further via Publishing original research? If you think so, this thread could be moved to the talk page there. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Some old ideas along these lines: Wiki Journal and Portal:Wiki Scholar --JWSchmidt 23:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * On your advice JTN, I moved the discussion --Leighblackall 06:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Concern
I apologize if this has already been discussed; I'm late to the party, it would seem. I have a concern, however:

The proposed policy states:
 * All original research pages must be labeled with the Research project template

I see that we are differentiating between "original research" and "secondary research" as well as "primary research". However, the distinction between these three may not be immediately apparent (or even that there is a distinction). Can we make this more evident, so that individuals do not need to worry about engaging in primary and secondary research here? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 05:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The page that has been suggested for merger with this one is just a list of three ideas, none of which are especially useful. The list is reproduced here:

Major Alternatives Identified by discussion so far:


 * No original research may be published which has not gone through formal peer review


 * Original research may be initiated and published per to be established policies and procedures


 * All research proposals, methods, review, and results must be transparent, open, published, and open licensed back to the participating public and commons. Public review, not peer review.

The first suggestion doesn't make sense as there is no way to peer review something on Wikiversity unless it has been published. Even if there were some type of flagged publishing system, I can't imagine this suggestion garnering much support here. The second suggestion basically just says "original research is permitted" which is already stated in this policy proposal. The third suggestion is redundant to the licensing and publishing requirements already built into Wikiversity. There is no need to state here that research on Wikiversity must be "transparent, open, published, and open licensed" as it's impossible for anything on Wikiversity to be otherwise. It is, after all, a wiki and free licensed. Thus I can't find anything on that page that would actually make sense to merge into the proposal here. Kaldari 22:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the 3rd idea is intended to make clear that you shouldn't attempt to publish original research here and claim the data, process, etc. that you used isn't available because you want to reserve all rights to that. E.G "I have discovered a way to create cold fusion, but I cannot show Wikiversity the math involved in making cold fusion possible." -- dark lama  23:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. I think in that case it would be more clear to simply state "All proposals, methods, reviews, and results related to original Wikiversity research should also be published on Wikiversity." I don't think it makes sense to say "must", as we can't require that outside reviewers (who may be reviewing the work in a journal or on an outside website) publish their reviews on Wikiversity, as the researcher doesn't necessarily have control over that. Kaldari 23:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By review I think it is meant any review that you did for the research. Like if you are reviewing census data from the 1920s for some research study that you are doing. -- dark lama  23:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I assumed it was referring to "reviews" in the academic publishing sense, i.e. a review of the research presented. If it's not, it should say something like "data" instead, so it is not confusing. Kaldari 00:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I support this merge. I think Regarding Research should have its contents moved to Original research and be made a redirect page to that one. Further discussion about the content of the list can then continue there as well. Mikael Häggström 17:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

✅ Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)