From: "Charles Matthews"
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
Jay JG wrote
"Deductive reasoning" becomes
original
research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in
an
article, not when used to do unit conversions.
I have to say that I'm not comfortable with 'content policy' being made
into
something slightly different in this way.
It's not being made into anything different at all; rather, it has been that
all along, but people often fail to abide by it. Quoting from
[[Wikipedia:No original research]]
"A wikipedia entry (including a part of an article) counts as original
research if it proposes ideas, that is... it purports to refute another
idea."
It couldn't be simpler, really, which is why it is astonishing that even
some long time editors seem unable to understand and/or accept it.
Policy on content fundamentally
is there to help sort out what content is encyclopedic in nature.
Right. And, at least for Wikipedia, it has been decided that "original
reasearch" is not "encyclopedic in nature". And one of the things defined
as "original research" is material that "purports to refute another
idea."
It is not
really there - though clearly will be used by some - to tell you when you
may or may not argue a certain way (as if the process was inherently
adversarial).
But of course it is there to do just that (among other things). For
example, Wikipedia clearly insists (via the NPOV policy) that you may not
argue only one position on a subject, but must bring countering views citing
various holders of positions, inevitably introducing an adversarial element
to articles. And the original research policy insists that one cannot argue
one's own views, but rather must present other's views, and that tempered
with the caveat that extreme minority views need not be presented at all.
Jay.