[WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

Sun Mar 20 19:43:00 UTC 2005

>
>Nah, the kooky view is too easy.  A better case would be a passage in a 
>scientific article written by one of our inhouse experts that correctly 
>states the basic concept of a scientific field, but in a way that hasn't 
>been "published" because it is trivial grad student exercise the derive it, 
>and all published work is at the bleeding edge of the field.  Imagine 
>his/her frustration at being asked
>for a citation for something that is obvious, and not being able to provide 
>one, even though he
>can explain it so well that even the arbitrators understand it.
>
>Sorry, no original research,  no insightful explanations and yes, a big 
>hole in making the subject
>more accessible.

Another strawman argument against the No original research rule.  Basic 
concepts of scientific fields are stated basically and simply in all sorts 
of introductory texts.  If they are not stated there, then they are not 
basic concepts at all.

Jay.