Don't worry about it. The material they are after is in other areas, like
idiosyntric definitions of truth, novel political and scientific theories,
etc.
Fred
From: David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:00:29 +1100
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research
Nicholas Moreau (beaubeaver(a)yahoo.co.uk) [041210 07:40]:
While off the current topic, I've always
wondered, are interview that a
Wikipedia editor conducted included in the realm of "original research"?
For example, I occasionally write a column on Family Entertainment for
Suite101.com. I've interviewed people like Canadian TV show
producer/creator/writer Blair Peters. While there no article yet on
Studio B or him, is the information I found out in the interview
"original"?
Good question. The conservative choice would be not to put in one's own
research in this manner ...
(I have had to consider this problem with wanting to write about Australian
'80s indie rock. Trouble is, I'm one of the authoritative sources. Do I
just not write about the stuff I'm the specialist in? Do I write about it
and link to interviews I wrote and published? Should I just put a list of
possible articles and the source I would list as reference and leave others
to maybe write the articles? That last would satisfy propriety, but it has
a certain PITA factor.)
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l