MačakPodŠlemom

Welcome!

Hi MačakPodŠlemom! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!

I'm pleased to see you decided to sign up. I think most of us started as you did, spotting something and thinking that "this can't be right, I've got to fix that". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Original research

I suspect that you were trying to be charitable to the person who invented that column at Writing Systems so you may have been taken aback by the response to your defence of it. You stepped on a wasp's nest. Although we have a policy that says wp:ignore all rules, the wp:no original research policy is probably the least breakable rule, because we recognise that it is probably our most essential bulwark against all sorts of craziness. So our insistence on prior publication in a wp:reliable source is understandable. If the 'reliable source' doesn't look right, you have to find other (more?) reliable sources that contradict it and ideally show that the consensus of expert opinion disagrees (see for example Homeopathy).

See also WP:BLOGS and WP:SELFPUB. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, John, for your attention and advices. Yes, you guessed what I was trying to do. I'm not (obviously) a native or at least advanced English speaker, so I'm afraid I must expect to be misunderstood from time to time, it happened many times on various forums etc. Let me assure you that I absolutely understand the importance of the "original research" rule. Even if I maintain that many of supposed "reliable sources" I checked during these 15+ years, are nothing more than published original researches without much, or any, merit and value, very often totally biased and false, I totally understand the importance of keeping out of Wikipedia any immediate attempt to pass the original research of an editor, because it would ruin the whole concept of Encyclopedia in no time. That table, in my opinion, can be described as an original research, but with explanations that stem in reliable sources (with the exception of Latin script, without a doubt the most widely spread one, but it still doesn't mean it should have it's own rules for counting, especially not the arbitrary "half+ of the world" kind). I think that, being a compilation of reliable sources (which tables usually are), it can enter the Wikipedia article, but only if the same criteria were employed for every field of the table. Which is not the case there. If I'm wrong about this, please correct me.MačakPodŠlemom (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am afraid that you are wrong. None of the table should contain material that is not based on a reliable source citation. I intend to delete any and all original research. As for published source (ignoring vanity publishers), we have to take on faith that the publisher is not going to ruin their reputation by publishing nonsense. (Some do, there is a list of unreliable sources). We have to draw a line somewhere, this is it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll have to bother you some more about this, I really need a clarification. Are you saying that the table really is an original research? It contains "Note x" for (almost) every entry with an explanation about source. Is this not allowed? If that is the case, then Wikipedia is in a BIIIG trouble, because there are hundreds of tables which I saw, that are made in the same/similar way. In fact, many of them don't even have Notes like this one has.

The fact that the information is given in tabular form is irrelevant, what matters is that potentially controversial material is supported by citation. I need time to check the rest of the table but if your assessment is correct, the whole table gets deleted unless someone can say hang on, I'm just about to fix that. As for other tables, see WP:other stuff exists. I don't go hunting and I'm never going to be exercised about the accuracy of minor league football results in 1959 anywhere. But certainly if I see any high profile article with such obvious WP: SYNTH, it is for the blue pencil. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, if I understood correctly, the fact we have to live with is that there will always be some "original research" tables about not so important issues. And, if I understood you also, the table could be fixed if instead of existing "Notes" someone provides citations in the form of web links or printed books with the data about ISBN and stuff?MačakPodŠlemom (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Essentially yes, until someone who cares enough about the topic to want the article to be as good as it can be, spots them and fixes or deletes.

Yes, important assertions like the one you rightfully challenged must have a supporting citation and preferably one that is of similar stature to the significance of the statement being made. For something like this, personally I would want a UNESCO report or a serious academic authority. Ideally! Sometimes we have to accept less as being better than nothing. But if not, then we delete, not just replace with a different guess.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Your English is astonishingly good, btw. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment:) I do use, though, grammar corrections, online-dictionaries when I have to, or when id doubt. Still, one thing I'll never learn completely - articles, and there's no online help for that.

English only has two, and they have to do a lot of work. I don't know if this helps? Drmies (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, no, it doesn't help :D. Thank you, anyway, for taking trouble. There are many "tutorials" and stuff about articles, what I meant is that there is no automatic correction about articles, like there is for spelling for example. I'm Serbian/Slavic native speaker, and it is well known issue we have with articles (save for Bulgarians and Macedonians). The only way to learn them properly for us is to live in English speaking environment, or to engage yourself in university level study.MačakPodŠlemom (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)