Wikiversity talk:Original research/Archives/2010/February

Essays/articles about research
We can find some answers by doing what we're doing--writing essays that are not official policy, and giving our individual ideas about what is research and what research should and shouldn't be. Wikipedia has a number of these, and a relatively small number of official policies. Just to understand where you're coming from, what do you hope this page will accomplish? --AFriedman (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I like this idea - and it should fit with our style. These essays/articles if mature enough and/or collaboratively authored could also be in the mainspace (this could be a slight difference in the style of Wikipedia/Wikiversity. Particular good ideas might then be incorporated into this policy. I must say, I am much more reluctant to edit policies/policy proposal than I am other pages, but happy to contribute ideas. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So, the de facto official policy becomes that there is no official policy for the time being, just explorative essays. This is not polemic on my part. I am seeking enlightenment.


 * I am hoping for more clarity from this page. I have no axe to grind, no current personal involvement in original research. However, I think it should be made "official policy" that Wikiversity subscribes to the accepted academic convention that research should be ethical. Research_process


 * PS Thanks to all for a healthy discussion.Harkey 23:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Having given this matter some deep thought - and in with the spirit of Wikiversity, I would like make the serious suggestion that we retire to the School of Philosophy, probably Ethics Department and pursue the matter there. This is real world stuff. Applied "global ethics"? It would make a wonderful case study for someone!!Harkey 10:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not from the philosophy "field" so can't really help out. But it would be certainly useful if you include a link here, if somebody else is interested. By "wonderful case study for someone" you meant a real world thesis or paper? --Gbaor 14:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the many Wiki projects, there is an international dimension, even within the English language versions. Most western nations would probably subscribe to a similar ethical code, but would this western code be acceptable or applicable to students or users in parts of the world which have different political, historical and religious backgrounds? In other words, is there an ethical stance which is accepted as global? Some code which is fundamentally human and which cannot be breached?
 * Yes, a real world thesis on the evolution of a global ethical policy for Wikiversity might make an excellent study. The source material is readily available right here!! I for one would be fascinated to read it:-)--Harkey 15:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * However, shhh! don't tell anyone or we might get the Hawthorne effect :-)--Harkey 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to begin an original research project
My research would be reviewing all the lessons plans I used last semester, how they evolved, and what I learned along the way. I started this process on my own web site [as you can see here] but decided it would be better to do it in wiki format, than html. I was going to publish it on my private wiki, but now that I have found this discussion I feel it might be appropriate.

What do you think?

Also, I realize this does not exactly pertain to the "Original research policy" nature of this discussion directly. Perhaps I could be a lab rat to see what happens, and if I reveal myself to be a crank then you can show what happens to cranks. If I share something useful then OK, and if I can get feedback I'm better off doing it here than on my own wiki.

--Charles Jeffrey Danoff 13:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I always did like lab rats!! It would be interesting to have more Research_process as part of the process. I look forward to reading it.--Harkey 14:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be a great to read it! Go on! --Gbaor 17:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Harkey and Gabor. Go on, I shall. The link I meant to include above was for my partially completed lesson one page in html. Going forward, is this a good place to ask questions? Or is there some other spot for questions related to those doing original research as opposed to those exploring the how-to/why/policy of original research? --Charles Jeffrey Danoff 00:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For now, it is ok to have it here. When you create the page, the discussion about the resource should be on its talk page. In the future it would be good to centralize the general discussion about research or research oriented topics somewhere. But currently (because of the ongoing policy discussion) this is the best place . --Gbaor 12:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion page for Research might be a good place to begin having such discussions, though the research page still focuses on the how right now. -- dark lama  13:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone for all of their help and support. I created and started the index page Reviewing My Semester with the FUN WITH ENGLISH 7A & 8A Textbooks. It's a little wordy, I know. Any suggestions for re-wording would be welcome. Additionally, what categories should I place it in? I've put it under original research and research for now. Now, I just need to start doing my work. --Charles Jeffrey Danoff 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

General dissent
There is no point in calling my criticism anything else, as I may be alone in feeling that these OR policies are regressive, and will ultimately prevent wv from fully manifesting.

In the full scope of the Information Society (which Lewis Mumford dates back the Egyptian edifice building system), the work we are doing here exceedingly new. I feel it is being approached from an antiquated perspective; what I see here is an exact rehash of the hypothesis-to-theory scientific method, that, in my opinion, has landed humanity in its present "Science gone mad" dilemma. Two examples are mutually assured nuclear destruction and technology baking the atmosphere. No amount of hypothesizing and proving is going to reverse these problems, even if this method produces usable information.

With the turn of the millennium, neurological research showed that the power of human conception is based on specific neurons that, in Darwin's scope, define evolution's goal, as it were, in terms of two neurons that apparently allow interrelating of emotion and analytic thoughts, and the communication of those thoughts emotionally (de Waal and others).

In my opinion, anything that does not leverage this is backwards, and will lead to the coagulation of the types of bad information that have landed humanity in continual crisis. (Ironically primates, whales, and elephants have these neurons, yet their crisis is our crisis, not theirs.)

Having said this, it should be easy to see why I think this document should be replaced with one that specifically looks at the kinds of research contributions people can use the wv to make, architects ways to promote these contributions, and then creates teaching vehicles to disseminate them. These documents should facilitate supports that are positive, rather than creating filters that have a negative approach,

My vision for these policy documents is to create an environment that allows for development of ideas (including wv policies) that can be directly implemented to produce tangible results in everyday society to prove their efficacy, rather than relying on the hypothesis/theory peer-review system, which I believe I can easily show to be problematic.

(My initial background is in craft trades such as art and ship restoration, and then I joined the computer communications revolution for its famous decade. After the American tech collapse, I started learning research as independent studies primarily in the action research environment of the Care2.com web community, which has since deprecated into your typical troll-bashing website.  I got credit for the computer work and humanistic research from Empire State College in New York City.)

Firstly I think we need to define wv as it is; how it has so-far evolved.

Secondly I think we need to see what the wv position in the World is in a practical sense.

Thirdly, and most important, understand the wiki media itself (to borrow from the parent organization), to attempt to assure that whatever it is that makes wikis so potentially powerful is not limited by the kinds of limitations that we chafe under in normal society, or on WP.

I think we all know what the wv is. So moving on to the second point, our position is presently as a smaller, yet freer subset of WP, (with a small number of unrelated projects such as the British law-reduction page, which is really more of a forum). With respect to WP, I think a really good goal would be focusing finding ways to promote research to create the kinds of documents that are used in WP.

This policy document attempts to create the criteria necessary for scholarly research, and hence, acceptance by WP, but criterion are generally filtering systems, and do not themselves promote work. What I see, as a first step, is the development of an actual (and officially accepted) interface to WP, where, for instance, perfectly good material that is banned from WP solely because it is OR can find a home on wv, and be developed to return to WP. Perhaps WP editors can raise questions themselves as part of the acceptance process, as differing from the presently proposed peer-review system.

(Having used the word "acceptance," I should point out that acceptance is a key technology development concept, and that nearly all the technology development strategies, such as the use of milestones, are directly applicable to both education and research, and should be leveraged as part of wv policy. Even technology's "programming to the test" is in ways that "teaching to the test" is not!)

The third is many factors more important than anything else here in my opinion. There is stuff going on in WP discussions, which is technically illegal, that is on the grand scale of Clarke's 2001 and 2010 (dates probably coincidental). What we are seeing, I believe, are implementations of the constructivist ideas of knowledge construction that only slightly predate the neurological discoveries my argument hinges on. The society that is forming around the mass of information is traditional in that it models the path that evolution has apparently created for us, yet advanced in that they rely on very synthetic digital technology.

Having said all that, I should mention arrive here with certain amount of paranoia. So I spent the past week reducing my defense to these points, which I will flesh out with supporting material was I have the time.--JohnBessatalk 19:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the approach used by this proposal is backwards? I agree there. About Wikiversity being a free subset of WP, I disagree and I think you got that part backwards. Universities usually have libraries with encyclopedias. I think Wikiversity has the potential to be much larger than Wikipedia. Wikipedia consists only of a subset of that which can go on at Wikiversity. -- dark lama  20:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in the present proposals that inhibits free creative thinking and the expression of original ideas. However, there is also still the very difficult task, of formulating a positive framework to support and encourage the expression of original thought, which has to be tackled.--Harkey 22:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the protecting page bit is inhibiting, other than that sure there is nothing that inhibits creating thinking and the expression of original ideas. There is nothing that encourages creative thinking and the expression of original ideas either which is what I think the problem is. This whole proposal could be simplified down to "Wikiversity allows research both original and secondary, whereas Wikipedia doesn't. Research should be labeled as such. Research must be peer reviewed." -- dark lama  13:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think with practice that you will find the "enabling" approach easier--pretty much everywhere. Just as an example: I just spent a couple weeks in New Brunswick and Quebec; amazingly, French I learned prior to first grade came back to me, and I could read the road signs.  As a former trucker, I instinctively translated the French road signs (kudos to Chomsky).  Instead of reading "Town Ordinance: No Engine Brakes," the French signs read "Thank you for not using engine brakes."  Small example, but it makes my point.--John[[Image:bessa66.png|12px]]Bessatalk 13:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that WP is a subset of wv? Don't you think that is a little grandiose?--John[[Image:bessa66.png|12px]]Bessatalk 14:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think thinking of the projects in terms of one being subset of another is a mistake. If you are to going to do that though than yes WP is a subset of WV. No I don't think that is a little grandiose. The extent and scope of Wikiversity is broader then Wikipedia. Wikipedia is limited in extent and scope to writing articles encyclopedic in nature and can be seen as a single work or collection. Wikipedia could amount to either a single book or a volume of books that sit on a bookshelf if it were in a library. This is true of Wiktionary, Wikiquotes, and Wikispecies as well. In ascents Wikibooks extends that practice from one book to many. If Wikibooks had existed first I don't think people would of seen a need to have separate projects for an encyclopedia, a dictionary, a quotes book, and a species book, because they are all books. If Wikiversity had existed first writing books could of happened on Wikiversity with a similar outcome. The same cannot be said for the reverse. I wouldn't expect to find lessons in an encyclopedia, or mathematic books, science books, etc. incorporated inside an encyclopedia. I would expect to find all those at a University though. I see nothing grandiose about that. -- dark lama  14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "No I don't think that is a little grandiose. The extent and scope of Wikiversity is broader then Wikipedia." If "Darklama" said this to me in person, I would tell him in such a way that he has no bearing on reality that he would get the message.  At very least he alter this strategy, but the look on my face would probably convince him to forever stop bothering other people. Unfortunately, as we have learned in the last decade, the Internet, as a purely digital media, fails to transport the nuances from which push leads to shove.  If the wv wants to be a mental hospital or an asylum for defectives, fine, but it will have to be so without me.  Http://johnbessa.com gets a lot of hits and needs work.  Working there will directly benefit me, but the idea that may be benefits from dealing with the narcissistic ramblings of the pathologically paranoid is a misconception that has basically proved to be a huge waste of time.--John[[Image:bessa66.png|12px]]Bessatalk 20:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, my experiences ranging from (so-called) Open Source to doctor visits tell me that peer-review is inherently flawed, and certification by test is even worse. My writing for wv strategies (which is voluminous) shows a model where disagreements fork into different parallel threads. Peer-review suggests a model where one person knows more than the other person, which is dominance. I doubt you can show me a single example where dominance doesn't directly result in conflict; conflict plagues the WP just as it does the World; what we need to avoid is the type of vortex that is continually sucking down the World.

On the topic of dominance, I think I can pretty easily show that it is defective thinking. In law, law enforcement and medicine, peer arrangements can be shown to resemble the mutual protection arrangement of organized crime through news articles. I use the term "organized" loosely, as it means predatory cooperation here, such as recently demonstrated in the Olympics by some South Korean speed skaters. I put a lot of thought into the above writing and I want to provide supporting material, but I don't think I have the time resources for debate, even "healthy debate," (as I need to prepare a show and satisfy some photo costumers).--JohnBessatalk 14:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was about to reply to your thoughts John, but after reading the discussion, Darklama said all I wanted. This "policy" is not to say, that something is restricted, but rather to officaily say that (original) research is allowed.
 * What disturbs me longer time now, is the review process. I remembered it now, reading Johns comments. According to me, there is no way that the research articles or projects could be reviewed in the usual sense. For this we would need a lot of people, experts in the fields who are willing to disclose their identity - officially, and also have the time capacity to do the review. So the question is: Can we find at least several scientists for each sub-field of science? I very much doubt it. Also, if we have a page reviewed, shall we protect it forever? What if somebody comes, saying that s/he is an expert in the field (or even it is an IP) and rewrites or adds something?
 * One possibility could be an "open, ongoing review system", similar what we have now. Similar system they have at BioMed Central, althoug there is a tough conventional review before. To gain credibility we need to gain participants and contributors.
 * And btw. I don't think it should be our primary goal to get recognition from the Big Brother. We should go our own way, and see where it takes us. --Gbaor 19:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reading through my writing. Just to confirm; I think wv should be independent in more ways than you can imagine, but we are a replica of WP in more ways than I can count.  Besides our appearance, software, policy documents and "enforcement," we even use the same language, such as in this discussion: I never heard of research being described as "original" before!  Or "instruction creep," for instance.  We are in the wikimedia world, where the wikimedia is simply the "main offices" for the exceedingly powerful WP, which is the #1 non-commercial web entity, making it (to me) the biggest single component of the present-day Information Society.  But unlike the WP, we don't have phantom admins terrorizing editors! (I will fill you in if your curious.)

Different types of OR, and therefore different approaches to the issue
Rather than re-work what I wrote above, I want to introduce a different approach that encourage people to work here. I just confirmed some solo-thinking by reading through the discussion; much of the awkwardness comes from an attempt to generalize a "integrity criteria" because the various disciplines are so different. For instance, a comparison of straight Science with history; my comparison would be physics or chemistry with social science. And then to further complicate the issue, I would compare scientific modeling with the hypothesis-to-theory process. And yet to complicate it further, I would ask you what you think "integrity in art" is, in terms of social science, because art is a valid wv topic of discussion!


 * Hypothesis: Physics and chemistry, while being complicated, are simple for us; we just take a look at the data, see what we think looks "sketchy," ask about it, and then repeat the experiment. Simple hypothesis/proof.


 * Scientific model: When I was doing my middle school education page, I attempted to create a singly simple approach to wave physics, and found that there seem to be two different types of wave mechanics on WP: one for sound, and one for the rest, as if there are two different natural laws of physics. (As I have given up on science teaching as a potential career, I let go of the quandary.)  This would be likewise simple for us to deal with as we could research the underlying math, and see where the errant short-cut was taken by the editors at WP, if that was the problem.


 * Integrity in Art: this may seem complicated, but it is not. By reaffirming what art is to you, you can confirm that art is valid.  The picture, music, writing or other media, if successful, grounds in you a concept that is feelings-based; it communicates emotional content that, when it is successful, strikes a significant chord that may be reassuring, or may be disturbing.  Art may make you feel good, or may make you feel hungry, or may otherwise influence your senses without being valid art, as art must "solidly ground you in an emotional understanding" (my words).  Valid art must resonate internally.

So far, so good. But now,

Social sciences and psychology:

No one can deny that there are continually battling schools of thought in these disciplines; a good example is the famous debate between BF Skinner (of behavioral fame) and Carl Rogers (a father of self-actualization), which has never been resolved. There is no solution to this kind of conflict here on wv, or anywhere else. I believe the problem resides in the fact that there are differing kinds of people; one kind, like Skinner, will respond well to behavioral therapy or re-education such as in cognitive therapy, and another is like Rogers, who will respond well to a reconstructive approach that attempts to realign the mind based on experiences. The only solution to the conflict caused by the polarized differences in thought is to allow for different article threads to accommodate different types of thought. (I believe that the latter type is in the much greater majority, even among patients, but that disproportion isn't necessarily relevant.)

This is not a small issue; Rogers is credited with bringing the US and USSR to the conference table ending the Cold War; his sociology is more powerful, in my opinion, than his psychology, which is significant. BF Skinner.. well there nothing nice I can say about Skinner, so I will defer to a behaviorist.

The idea of different threads implies discussion. If editors, or contributors as in our case, are violently in opposition, there will very likely be the kind of pointless argument that plagues WP. But if editors are in general agreement, then argument will probably be over finer points, which will help support a concept rather than destroy its efficacy. This type of discussion (an example is this discussion) is, I think, what many here may think of as peer review. As we go out to the rest of the Information Society to attempt get supporting information for our approaches, we become experts, satisfying the need that Gbaor mentions; in constructivist terms, we, ourselves, go from form novice to expert, a journey that, if situated in context, can be very quick.

There may be cases were opposing editors get along well enough to show what they believe to be weaknesses in others' arguments as a critical contribution, but that will be rare. More likely, I believe we will see editors blanking out others' material without consensus as results of their violently opposing opinions. Blanking information conflictingly or surreptitiously should become highly illegal here, as it is fascistic. I have seen this happen here on wv (but I will resist mentioning names).

So perhaps we need a refereeing system such was we see in sports (back to your corners!) rather than peer-review in its traditional definition. As the Offspring song goes "got to keep them separated."

There are a few more topics I want to touch on:

When I mention the WP casting its shadow over us, I try to do so in a way that is beneficial. As an "OR positive" environment, I think that we should field the types of discussion that are condemned (wrongfully so, I believe) on WP. The conflicting editors should bring their discussions here to mirror pages, hash out the issues, be they with supporting material, or completely new material, and then use the mirror pages here to, either compose WP material, or as a reference link to their WP material. If we do this, then WP editors and admins will probably want to add criteria to the integrity process.

In fact, I wonder why information should even be here if it is not OR; it should be on WP. Unless it got rejected from WP because of a bias there against either basis of thought, or perhaps a more traditional bias such as a cultural conflict. I usually think of OR on WP as "new information," rather than personally conducted research, which is the official definition. New information is information that supersedes old material because of overriding recent research. It gets branded OR only because controlling editors don't want to see new information attacking there accepted ideas; they don't want to, or perhaps are unable to, wrap their minds around new research. I primarily write about empathy as emotional communication; there is absolutely no way that I will touch the WP empathy page, as the editors there are obviously themselves devoid of the underlying neurology necessary for empathy. Same with eudaimonia--I just won't go there. These two topics are addressed on WP as intellectual exercises, when in fact they are feelings-based. Editors there cannot conceive of these topics in the ways they where initially defined, as they cannot. That simple; trying to elucidate them is a waste of time.

Finally I want to mention what I think of as "condemned" research; not condemned by WP--but society itself.

I believe that this an excellent place to teach veterinary science. Veterinary science, along with human medicine, have become such cash cows that their respective professional organizations, and respective educational institutions have become like organized crime. (When Obama attempts to solve American medical issues through insurance control, I believe he is being foolish. The problem is what it sounds like: medicine and its underlying educational system: human capital.)  While treating humans w/o official certification is illegal, even if the human may die for want of care, treating animals is not, and humans and animals are not as different as these industries would have you believe, as I learned while treating my dying cat, Krishna. If we want to be independent, this, I believe, would be a great place to start. Telling someone to "get medial advice" is not Science, it is political correctness on behalf of bureaucracy, which has become a component of capital control. That kind of thinking, in my opinion, belongs in the trash. I, like much of society, am tired of being treated by obvious mental defectives who are validated by educational capital simply because they have high IQ and can easily pass tests, but lack the neurons necessary to be moral humans. Even worse are dentists; nearly everyone has a corrupt dentist experience. --JohnBessatalk 23:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)