Wikiversity talk:Original research/Archives/2009

Original research
In the current version of the Wikiversity proposal, "conducting research and publishing results" remains as part of the stated mission of Wikiversity. I think the clear intention of the proposal is that Wikiversity support and fosters scholarly “secondary research” (literature reviews). However, the current proposal also says, "Whether or not Wikiversity will host original research or secondary research is still the subject of debate." If Wikiversity allows original research then special effort will have to be made to deal with crank theories and the problem of "original research spam". I think it is safe to say that original research will only exist within Wikiversity if a policy framework can be developed by the community to deal with the potential problems of original research. In Faculty club Review board and Primary research I have tried to sketch a system by which Wikiversity might be able to adopt a "some original research" policy. In my view, the goal would not be to make original research a priority within Wikiversity, but it would be useful for the educational mission of Wikiversity if there were a system that allowed some original research, particularly in special subject areas such as the study of how wiki communities function. --JWSurf 03:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Some nice preliminary work here JW, I look forward to reviewing some of the other files when they arrive. Mirwin 11:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your writeup of the "Faculty Club" looked very good to me. I took the liberty of putting a key point that we cannot overlook if we want the wiki to prosper.  "Wikiversity faculty members have the special obligation of recognizing spoofs and frauds and explaining to non-experts how to understand that specific Wikiversity content is bogus."  For a while early at Wikipedia appeal to authority was on the rise.  Experts are busy people with no time to explain.  You know the drill.  The NOR as currently written to focus on reputable third party verifiability and the campaign to cite sources nipped that pretty effectively in the bud.  The whole point of Wikiversity is to capture the explanations and make use of them.  That is not to say the "expert" or "authority" must satisfy each newcomers.  That, in my view, is the job of the material captured and the current study team.  Feel free to remove the bolding.  No doubt others will spot different key points near to their heart.  It looks like an excellent starting point to me.  Mirwin 12:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed "Faculty club" to "Review board" because the key issue for support of primary research is peer review. I'm floating the idea of a special Wikiversity "functionary" called the "referee" that would function to guide the Wikiversity community towards scholarly peer review of original research conducted at Wikiversity. A scholarly approach to discussion of research does not involve "appeal to authority". In an open wiki community experts must explain their expert knowledge to non-experts so that the entire community can be guided to wise choices. This is fundamentally in line with the Wikiversity educational mission. --JWSchmidt 14:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

JWSchmidt, My thoughts are as follows:
 * Academia is self-perpetuating;
 * One becomes a scholar under the supervision of another scholar;
 * One establish credibility by publishing in recognised journals; Then he becomes an editor an reviews others' works;
 * It is difficult to start coordinating research and be the referee at the same time;
 * If wikiversity can start producing results quickly, and publishing them somewhere, even as electronic preprint, it is already doing well;
 * Therefore, I think the research department of wikiversity should start by concentrating as a meeting place for scholars, especially established ones.
 * The only problem is, of course, established scholars already have their ways of working and co-laborating.Hillgentleman 07:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Primary research should be encouraged and planned for in wikiversity. A simple system to let users discuss a topic until they have framed a hypothesis, then created an experiment to test the hypothesis, and a system to log results from users that conducted the experiment and their conclusions could be easily integrated into the framework of the wiki, and kept separate from the established body of knowledge. The results could be open to review from all. Those kinds of experiments don't have to be new and exciting- they could just be basic chemistry labs or physics projects with all the information and software needed to conduct it in any setting, and a base of data to compare to. But, it could also be unique research that people haven't looked into, and if it is exciting, it would grow on its own with the users' work. The users would have an exciting, educational way to find experiments. -Evan Bacon, Cal State BakersfieldEcbacon 07:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need a simple introductory page with suggestions for how to include research activities in Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 09:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. The model he suggests works only in Science, however.  Research papers in History work very differently, and in order to publish in a big journal, would have to not be published on Wikiversity first.  The Jade Knight 11:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts on the "appeal to authority" approach to verify OR:


 * 1) How do we know who really is an authority and who simply claims to be one ?


 * 2) Over-reliance on authority can, and has, led to the rejection of any sufficiently new model, approach, or theory. We need to keep this in mind and not end up simply rejecting OR that isn't a clone of existing  models, approaches, or theories.  For some examples of this, Einstein was never comfortable with quantum mechanics, as in his famous "I can't believe that God plays dice with the universe" quote, and Edison fought (dirty) against AC power. StuRat 14:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Quote"
Um, guys, we have a Wikiquote so that we can make sure that the things we are quoting are really coming from that person. Yes, I know this quote is attributed to Ben Franklin all over the web. I'd like chapter and verse on that, please. I find it quoted as a Chinese proverb at http://www.ntlf.com/html/lib/quotes.htm (which is much more likely). If this is a University, we need some sources here. --WiseWoman 09:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote at the beginning is nice, but somehow not connected to (original) research. I suggest to remove it, or substitute with a more suitable (no exact idea now). Also see the note from WiseWoman above. --Gbaor 14:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the quote:

"Tell me and I forget, teach me and I remember, involve me and I learn" -Benjamin Franklin


 * The "involve me and I learn" part could relate to OR, if it's taken to mean "involve me in the research". StuRat 14:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant the quote is not really research-oriented. I found a good spot for this here (even more). For example:

or something like this... --Gbaor 16:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought."
 * "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."