User talk:NotARobot06 - Revision history

Keith: /* Original research */ Reply

2025-08-21T18:44:58Z

Original research: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, 21 August 2025
Line 4:		Line 4:

	:I see, thank you for the clarification. Regardless, as you said it's better to find unbiased sources, rather than make this wiki seem preachy and unserious by using a guide (not even an article) about how to stop using Microsoft products. [[User:NotARobot06\|NotARobot06]] ([[User talk:NotARobot06\|talk]]) 14:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)		:I see, thank you for the clarification. Regardless, as you said it's better to find unbiased sources, rather than make this wiki seem preachy and unserious by using a guide (not even an article) about how to stop using Microsoft products. [[User:NotARobot06\|NotARobot06]] ([[User talk:NotARobot06\|talk]]) 14:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
			::Yeah, I agree completely! Just wanted to clear up the terminology. Good work on the edits by the way, I've seen you pop up a lot in the edit feed! [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 18:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

NotARobot06: /* Original research */ Reply

2025-08-21T14:59:55Z

Original research: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:59, 21 August 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Original research ==		==Original research==

	Hi there, just saw your edit notice on the Microsoft page and wanted to clarify about the meaning of original research in the context of a wiki. Original research means research which is conducted by the individual who is editing the article, or which is otherwise not dependant on an outside citation. The reason why it's bad is beacuse there's no way the reader can know anything about the article's editor, let alone whether they're an expert in what they're writing about. With any external source made by someone other than the editor (even a bad one), it's not counted as original research because the reader can at least have a look at the organisation which is publishing the information, and make a judgement on its credibility (although we should really avoid citing anything that's not particularly credible). I do, however, think that it is reasonable to swap out those sources for more credible ones from a non-biased source in the context of the specific edits you made, as Microsoft is more than large enough for us to be fingding proper reporting from credible sources. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 11:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)		Hi there, just saw your edit notice on the Microsoft page and wanted to clarify about the meaning of original research in the context of a wiki. Original research means research which is conducted by the individual who is editing the article, or which is otherwise not dependant on an outside citation. The reason why it's bad is beacuse there's no way the reader can know anything about the article's editor, let alone whether they're an expert in what they're writing about. With any external source made by someone other than the editor (even a bad one), it's not counted as original research because the reader can at least have a look at the organisation which is publishing the information, and make a judgement on its credibility (although we should really avoid citing anything that's not particularly credible). I do, however, think that it is reasonable to swap out those sources for more credible ones from a non-biased source in the context of the specific edits you made, as Microsoft is more than large enough for us to be fingding proper reporting from credible sources. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 11:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

			:I see, thank you for the clarification. Regardless, as you said it's better to find unbiased sources, rather than make this wiki seem preachy and unserious by using a guide (not even an article) about how to stop using Microsoft products. [[User:NotARobot06\|NotARobot06]] ([[User talk:NotARobot06\|talk]]) 14:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Keith: /* Original research */ new section

2025-08-19T11:06:05Z

Original research: new section

New page

== Original research ==

Hi there, just saw your edit notice on the Microsoft page and wanted to clarify about the meaning of original research in the context of a wiki. Original research means research which is conducted by the individual who is editing the article, or which is otherwise not dependant on an outside citation. The reason why it's bad is beacuse there's no way the reader can know anything about the article's editor, let alone whether they're an expert in what they're writing about. With any external source made by someone other than the editor (even a bad one), it's not counted as original research because the reader can at least have a look at the organisation which is publishing the information, and make a judgement on its credibility (although we should really avoid citing anything that's not particularly credible). I do, however, think that it is reasonable to swap out those sources for more credible ones from a non-biased source in the context of the specific edits you made, as Microsoft is more than large enough for us to be fingding proper reporting from credible sources. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 11:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)