From: Guy Chapman aka JzG
Look up a fact? No problem. Join the dots from a
series of facts you
looked up? Original research, in my book.
I was recently working on an article (not in Wikipedia) on the phrase "Slippery
slope," which these days usually means "a course leading inexorably to
disaster." I wanted to support a statement that although there _are_ old uses of the
phrase in its modern meaning, it became much more popular starting around 1980.
My public library (and _many_ others) provide online access to a searchable full
page-image database of complete back issues of the New York Times. In a few minutes, I was
able to compile this:
Hits on exact phrase "slippery slope", all article types, ProQuest Historical
Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) (a database available to patrons of many
public libraries)
1857-99: 5 (average about 1 per decade)
1900-49: 41 (average 8.2 per decade)
1950-59: 11
1960-69: 23
1970-79: 36
1980-89: 144
1990-99: 402
Well, can I use this in an article? Under Wikipedia's present rules, I don't think
so.
And yet.
It is certainly original research. But it's verifiable, sensu Wikipedia, in that it
the database is very widely available so it's easy to confirm my results. In fact
it's easier than verifying an obscure print publication with no online copy. And, in
this particular case, my assemblage of facts is intellectually honest: it is reasonable to
want to know the history of the phrase's use, and this is a reasonable way to find
out. This is not a selective assembly of facts made for the purpose of suggesting a
biassed conclusion.
And I was _not_ able to find a published source that said in so many words that the phrase
bloomed in popularity around 1980.
Granted this _is_ original research, what exactly is the harm in it?
Other than its being the first step on a slippery slope, of course.