I’ve watched Wikipedia grow into a really useful information source since 2001. It is great to contribute to a not-for-profit combined international effort like this with all its warts – bit like society itself. Nice to think that we can do something worthwhile without being paid for it.
— "the sowing and planting of ideas into an orderly series, as opposed to just living off the careless ideas one finds in daily experience, is pleasurable in itself" — Thomas Hobbes
For your indomitable resistance to abominable persistence. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you for working as a group to improve on Sustainability and to ensure people with fringe POVs do not get away with it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
For History of botany. I don't know why, but I just felt that the article was very compelling. If only all the "history of science" articles were of this grade... Cheers, ResMar 02:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar
I was thrilled to learn that the Sustainability article received GA status. This was in no small measure due to your efforts. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The Geography Barnstar
I was led to the article Lord Howe Island, which you are largely responsible for, because I happened to wonder where my Kentia Palm came from. Wow! This is what geography should be. Wikipedia at its best. Thank you for all of your great environmental and geographical contributions. Foobarnix (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
"It's good to let your ego be punctured once in a while. Most of us, after several years and tens of thousands of edits, start to put a lot of our egos into our work here, more than we originally either intended or anticipated. While it's natural for this to happen, the unintended consequences include feelings of ownership over one's contributions and a quickness to react in poor faith, and even with arrogance. Someone reverted your edits with a sarcastic edit summary? Let it go. Someone called you a bad name somewhere? Don't retaliate. Let it go. While it hurts at first to let these things go [...] retaliating not only brings you discredit, but it increases your anger, and corresponding risk of over-reaction, as the number of related provocations rises." – Antandrus, January 2007
A source must be verifiable and reliable. NPOV policy is premised on the idea that most secondary sources are not disinterested: a strong encyclopedia does not seek to provide a disinterested view, but rather multiple views. Hence the slogan "Verifiability, not truth." What matters is not that a claim be true or factual, but rather that it be a verifiable fact that someone actually holds this view. We strive to include all significant views, giving each due weight, and putting each view in context.
The definition of primary is different in the social and natural sciences, and this topic sits squarely over the two. In the natural sciences, as the policy says "papers reporting on experiments" are primary. We prefer systematic reviews of the scientific literature. In the social sciences systematic reviews are thin on the ground and academic papers tend to incorporate literature reviews. Virtually all the sources here are ordinary peer-reviewed academic papers and academic books. If we declare all of them primary, then we could be left with no article. One way forward is to take more notice of the citation indices, book reviews and so forth.
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists.[1] That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Answered
Resolved