Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Unlike NPOV I don't consider no-original-research
to be a core (thus
non-negotiable) principal of the project, rather it's just a useful
rule.
Once wikipedia has dominated the known universe and has become the
primary repository for all human knowledge it may become the case that
the only way to get good peer review is to publish in wikipedia. It
is already the case that I'd trust content vetted in wikipedia over
some sources (notably the non peer-reviewed sort). I expect that
we'll revise our procedures to address this when the time comes.
I'd disagree with that view---if Wikipedia is to be an *encyclopedia* by
any reasonable definition of that term, it has to be a compendium of
existing human knowledge, not a research journal publishing novel
claims. I'm not opposed to a Wikimedia Foundation project that would
include original research, but I think it would be problematic to
include it as part of an encyclopedia. Perhaps eventually it would
become a test of important research that it makes it into Wikipedia, but
this would be after it's presumably published and discussed elsewhere;
it shouldn't make its first appearance in an encyclopedia article, if
this is to actually be an encyclopedia.
-Mark