G A R R, Generally Accepted Research Rules,

[rhr]

GARR, Generally Accepted Research Rules

 

In the meantime, while we wait for a suitable forum, let's start talking about research rules. And in order not to confuse them with Roger Wooten's GARM rules by calling them GARM-2, let's call them GARR, Generally Accepted Research Rules. So does anyone want to see some GAR Rules, or post some of your own? Here are some for starters.

 

1. Do no harm. Do not destroy, suppress, withhold, or conceal any information that you may discover. Do not discourage any avenues of possible research.

 

2. Stay civil. This is the second-most important rule for online research. No flaming, or spamming, at all. Do not downplay, disparage, or ridicule anyone else's theories or proposals.

 

3. Take ownership of everything you write. Sign everything you post or publish, and don't expect everyone to know you by your username, or handle. There is no place in research for anonymity. It's like crying in baseball.

 

4. Be clear in what you write. Make sure you distinguish between what is established fact and what is just conjecture, or opinion, or guesses.

 

5. Quote your sources. Never leave any dangling attributions such as "I seem to remember", or "I read somewhere that". Make all references explicit and definite.

 

6. Try to limit your quotations of a previous poster's message to the pertinent portion being responded to, and never include quotations of quotations unless you are responding to all of them specifically.

 

7. Try your best to use Standard English. But if you can't, and you have some esoteric bit of knowledge to contribute, then we still want you to participate. Use a spell checker, and try to avoid sentence fragments, and don't use idiosyncratic punctuation.

 

8. Try to resist using emoticons. Or at least try to use them sparingly, and only on the rarest occasions.

 

George Kovalenko.

 

Edited August 10, 2010 by rhr

[Roger W.]

George;

 

Some good points but, in what context? To make that clear, sometimes I am just having a discussion and historic preservation of such I would not see remotely as a goal. Now if I were laying down a particular plank of company history I should qoute the source. It gets easy to think that because I'm saying it people should believe it but, I would hope people would call me out if they think my theory is wrong even though part of it may be based on a factual bit.

 

I'm not sure how you are going to get participation from those experts that will be cagey. Your first point is not surpressing information and there are several people that hold back for various reasons. I know certain things that maybe being saved for articles and or books so I am actively holding back (not surpressing as it isn't in the general discourse) information.

 

To take it a step further, you are actually wanting online research to be held to a higher standard than books because the books out there are hugely bad at properly attributing anything. Maybe if we do a better job online they'll have to do a better job offline.

 

Roger W.(Wooten)

[rhr]

Hi Roger,

 

Perhaps these rules are a bit too rigorous and demanding, but it would be a small victory if people would follow at least some of the rules. For instance, I noticed that you signed your full surname, although parenthetically. ;~) Everyone saves things for publication in articles or books, so that's acceptable because eventually it gets published. I find that if one introduces a new idea online, then it is usually either forgotten and then gets rediscovered over and over again, or else it gets ripped off without attribution by someone else who claims to have "discovered" it.

 

Yes, I actually want online research to be held to as high a standard as scholarly books. And you're right, maybe the authors of pen books will have to do a better job offline. ;~)

 

George Kovalenko.

 

[Ray-Vigo]

I would change "never" in #5 to "whenever possible avoid". There are indeed too many "I think I remember seeing somewhere" sort of posts, but "never" is too strong a word for that context. Sometimes you do know a quote or a fact because you saw it somewhere a long time ago and just can't recall where. I think then it would go towards the weight given to the bit of evidence rather than its admissibility.

 

This isn't to say "I seem to remember" should be used wholesale for a lot of stuff, but I do think it has a limited place where someone is trying to get a discussion going or trying to raise an item. Sources are important, but I fear that saying "never" in #5 will exclude some facts or ideas that should be brought up, even if their initial bona fides aren't totally clear.

 

I would add to #3 that while you have to take ownership of what you write, that anything reasonable with at least some fair basis in fact should be allowed to be raised. At the very least it can be raised and discounted. While people should take responsibility for what they write, they should also be able to speak without fear of ridicule or being looked down on for what they've said, assuming there's at least some basis in fact.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Ray-Vigo

[ToasterPastry]

While I take ownership in everything I write, I wish to limit, for professional reasons, the dissemination of my actual name. If you wish to know my real name, you can ask me. However, I have enough 'clients' who go out of their way to Google me, and my actual name already appears under the search function a few too many times. I do not sell pens for a living. Therefore, I think it is irrelevant that pen people NEED to know my name. I have been published several times under my actual name. If someone wishes to pay me for my work, I will sign it anyway you want.

[rhr]

Ray, I agree with you in both instances, but the most the most important point you raise is that there must be some basis in fact. I won't correct the rules in the first post so that everyone can have the benefit of seeing them in their original versions, but here are the revised versions of rules 3 and 5.

 

3. Take ownership of everything you write. Sign everything you post or publish, and don't expect everyone to know you by your username, or handle. There is no place in research for anonymity. However, anything reasonable should be allowed to be raised and given a chance, even though it might later be discounted, but there must be at least some initial basis in fact.

 

5. Quote your sources. Whenever possible try to avoid leaving dangling attributions such as "I seem to remember", or "I read somewhere that". Try to make all references explicit and definite.

 

George Kovalenko.

 

[rhr]

  On 8/11/2010 at 12:08 AM, ToasterPastry said:

I have enough 'clients' who go out of their way to Google me, and my actual name already appears under the search function a few too many times.

No problem. But I thought that quantity of hits was the whole point of posting on FPN. ;~) By the way, I feel the same way about payment for my work.

 

George Kovalenko.

 

[rhr]

  On 8/11/2010 at 12:09 AM, rhr said:

3. Take ownership of everything you write. Sign everything you post or publish, and don't expect everyone to know you by your username, or handle. There is no place in research for anonymity. However, anything reasonable should be allowed to be raised and given a chance, even though it might later be discounted, but there must be at least some initial basis in fact.

The new rule 3 was getting a little bloated and trying to say too much, or at least two different things in the same rule, so I split it into two. There is now a new number 4, and the other rules all have gotten bumped down one number, so there are now 9 altogether.

 

3. Take ownership of everything you write. Sign everything you post or publish, and don't expect everyone to know you by your username, or handle. There is no place in research for anonymity.

 

4. Anything reasonable should be allowed to be raised and given a chance, even though it is raised anonymously, and even though it might later be discounted, but there must be at least some initial basis in fact.

 

George Kovalenko.

 

[rhr]

Here's a new version of rule 1.

 

1. Do no harm. Do not disseminate any disinformation. Do not destroy, suppress, withhold, or conceal any information that you may discover. Do not discourage any avenues of possible research.

 

George Kovalenko.

 

[kazoolaw]

So, shoot me, but I can't help myself...

 

George, you have done more research than I ever could, but none of these 'rules' seem to relate to the actual research (with the possible exception of No. 1) but rather to the discussion of research.

 

These are important groundrules for discussion, having followed many threads that, after much chest-thumping, end up with "Did so!" versus "Did not!"

 

Your patent research seems to be carefully documented, clearly cited, and the appropriate documents produced for others to see and review. None of the "I have a second generation photocopy of a proof of a catalog that may/may not have been in general circulation, and no you can't see it."

 

Can you imagine if someone tried to introduce the concept of "peer review" into pendom?

 

gary

[Dave Johannsen]

  On 8/10/2010 at 9:22 PM, rhr said:

In the meantime, while we wait for a suitable forum, let's start talking about research rules.

I think one must be careful to differentiate between history discussion and history publication. As a mathematician, I believe in the highest standards of scholarship in publications, however mathematics progresses through informal discussion. Exchanges on the web are a problematic hybrid because they have the character of discussion, but leave a lasting record. However, I think that such exchanges need to keep their informal nature, with posters being willing to provide documentation if it is requested. In fact, I don't have a problem with incorrect or incomplete recollection in forums such as these (the requirement that each participant dig through folders to provide reference for each statement would stifle discussion), as it generally prompts further questions and the facts are usually established. Where I would like to see the bar raised is what is put forth as an "article" (either in print or on websites). I'm currently (slowly and painfully) recreating much of Andy Brenner's Houston research, because his "Pen World" article has no evidence or sources provided for any of his assertions -- this is maddening. At a minimum, any written "article" ought to contain a listing of references. Closer to the ideal is that every assertion carry a footnote, with appropriate explanation (either citation of a document or simply letting the reader know that what was stated is conjecture based on observation). Of course, such recommendations will not be met warmly by any mainstream publication (such as "Pen World"), but ought to be the goal for self-published (i.e., web or "Pennant") articles.

 

 

Dave

[rhr]

Gary,

 

I was thinking about that last night. These aren't rules on how to do specific pen research, but rather a discussion of research itself, "ground rules for discussion", as you said. It's not language, but meta-language.

 

Thanks for your kind words about my patent research, but I do have to admit that, like everyone else, I am holding back a few choice things, and "no you can't see it" until I publish it. ;~)

 

I think we all have to dare to take pen research seriously. If we don't, no one else will, and then pen research will languish. In fact, The Pennant has already introduced the concept of peer review into pen research, on a modest and informal scale. But it's a start. The whole point of these rules is to try to get people to start taking pen research seriously.

 

George Kovalenko.

 

Edited August 12, 2010 by rhr

[PatientType]

I think that the acronyms should stand for:

 

General Accepted Research Rules (GARR) and Genuinely Reprehensible Research Rules (GRRR)

 

That's the extent of my thoughtful and erudite contribution to this debate.

[rhr]

Dave,

 

You're right, this is informal online discussion of pen history, but I still see it as a form of publication because, as you said, it leaves a lasting record. I think that even in informal discussion documentation is a prerequisite.

 

It seems that incorrect or incomplete recollection is one of the major necessary evils of online discussion because of its instantaneous nature, and one we'll have to live with. I hear you about the quality of citation in such publications as Pen World and Stylophiles. It's maddening. But I think the bar should be raised generally to include the Internet.

 

The real problem is to overcome the notion that the borrowing and remixing, with citation, of the information that we find on the Internet is somehow inappropriate, or should be disallowed. The nice thing about the Internet is that citations can be added almost silently and unobtrusively by inserting links. ;~)

 

But the biggest hurdle of all, as I said in my reply to Gary above, is to try to get people to start taking pen research seriously.

 

George Kovalenko.

 

Edited August 12, 2010 by rhr

[rhr]

  On 8/12/2010 at 3:38 AM, PatientType said:

I think that the acronyms should stand for: Genuinely Reprehensible Research Rules (GRRR)

I proposed this acronym only as a joke, and not as one that should be used seriously. It would consist of the negation of all the rules in GARR, hence the growling GRRR. ;~)

 

 

  On 8/12/2010 at 3:38 AM, PatientType said:

, and General Accepted Research Rules (GARR)

Is this better English? I used the other version only as a mirror of GARM, Generally Accepted Restoration Methods.

 

George Kovalenko.

 

Edited August 12, 2010 by rhr

[PatientType]

  On 8/12/2010 at 4:22 AM, rhr said:

  On 8/12/2010 at 3:38 AM, PatientType said:

I think that the acronyms should stand for: Genuinely Reprehensible Research Rules (GRRR)

I proposed this acronym only as a joke, and not as one that should be used seriously. It would consist of the negation of all the rules in GARR, hence the growling GRRR. ;~)

 

 

  On 8/12/2010 at 3:38 AM, PatientType said:

, and General Accepted Research Rules (GARR)

Is this better English? I used the other version only as a mirror of GARM, Generally Accepted Restoration Methods.

 

George Kovalenko.

 

 

 

And, mine were also just a joke. A little silliness leavens the day.

[Gerry]

George, there is a lot of useful info in your post, and I agree with gary that it seems to relate more to the discussion than the research itself. Indeed, I would suggest that a lot of what you have suggested should be laid out as the Guidelines for posting in any forum that might be set up for serious discussion and research.

 

Regards,

 

Gerry

[rhr]

  On 8/14/2010 at 1:23 PM, PatientType said:

A little silliness leavens the day.

Garr,... me matey!... ;~)

 

George.

 

Edited August 14, 2010 by rhr

[antoniosz]

  On 8/10/2010 at 9:22 PM, rhr said:

3. Take ownership of everything you write. Sign everything you post or publish, and don't expect everyone to know you by your username, or handle. There is no place in research for anonymity. It's like crying in baseball.

 

Such formalism is fitting for professional researchers (i.e. for those who recognition of their research is as important as the result of the research) but not necessarily for everyone. Some care about the destination, some just enjoy the trip...