On 3/24/06, Steve Block
<steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:
Well, I'm going by ''Original
research is a term used on Wikipedia to
refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not
been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means
unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas;
or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data,
statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's
co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical
interpretation".''
So creating a narrative which doesn't exist elsewhere, for example
citing blog entries to create a story, that's clearly original research,
yes?
Imagine you have three blogs which refer to a sequence of events. One
blog has events A and B, and the other two have C, and D and E
respectively. You simple sequence those events in chronological order,
referring copiously. I don't believe it's a "novel" narrative to
create an article which simply documents that the sequence of events
A, E, B, C, D took place.
If you start saying B took place because of E (although no blog
specifically said that), or start drawing parallels between events A/E
and C/D, then you start heading into dangerous territory.
Okay, but imagine you have one blog, which describes said blogger doing
a, b and c. Is that permissable? Because if it is, then it's
permissable to game Wikipedia, to my mind, in that anything documented
online is fair game.
To my mind, a novel narrative is one that can not be verified
independent of the events themselves.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 24/03/06