[WikiEN-l] Original research

Wed Dec 1 11:48:13 UTC 2004

As i understand it, the"no origanal research" means tha you cant just
post some idea you have into wikipedia, however if a wikipedian was to
post some idea to a website or in a journal or whatever and then some
other wikimedian (it is important that it is not the same wikimedian
as the one who did the research because that would be self promotion)
includes that POV in an article (so long as it is appropriate, labled
as just one POV of many, and has where appropriate warnings that the
content may be suspect quality) then it is fine.

If you think about it, everything in every scientific journal is
origanal research. It is fine for wikimedia to quote these, but not
for wikimedia to be thier origanal publisher.

paz y amor,
[[User:The bellman]]
rjs 

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:30:07 +0000, R E Broadley
<20041111 at stardate.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Ray
> 
> Thanks for your reply. I've recently heard that one of the things that
> Wikipedia is not is that it is not a place for "original research". I
> accepted this once I heard it, but your last sentence now has me
> wondering if the opinion on this is split.
> 
> Can we add content that is unproven by the wider scientific community
> with a boilerplate, or is it barred altogether?
> 
> Cheers,
> Ed
> 
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> 
> > If we accept only the opinion of experts we end up putting ourselves
> > into an elitist box, and that strikes me as very un-wiki.  Ultimately,
> > the facts should speak for themselves without regard to who is
> > expressing them.
> >
> > Proponents of mainstream "science" ofte go to great effort to
> > discredit ideas which appear contrary to their own, and in doing so
> > can manage to make themselves look even more foolish than the people
> > whom they are confronting..  It is not necessary to pepper an article
> > through with  "they believe . . " or "the discredited idea that . .
> > .", etc.  The first burden of proof in a scientific concept rests with
> > the proponents.  If they fail to carry that burden then there is
> > nothing there for the opponents to disprove.  For many of these
> > articles a simple piece of boilerplate, perhaps as the second
> > paragraph, should be enough to satisfy NPOV.  It could read, "The
> > subject of this article is considered unproven by the wider scientific
> > community.  Users relying on the information in this article do so at
> > their own risk."
> >
> > Keeping things simple can save a lot of flames.
> > Ec
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 

-- 
hit me: robin.shannon.id.au
jab me: saudade at jabber.zim.net.au

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons 
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/