On 12/19/06, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, that's making things worse;
we're now using weasel words
("appears that", "probably is") to cover our original research
("the
consensus is"). If we only have primary sources, then we say what the
primary sources say. If we have a secondary source that says "the
consensus of legal opinion is", then great. If not, then *we* cannot
become that secondary source that draws that conclusion, partly
because we're not experts in this field, but mostly because it's
original research. Remember, the second you say "the consensus is",
you need to be able to state exactly who considers there to be a
"consensus". Otherwise you are "introducing an analysis or synthesis
of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that
builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing
that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source."
Are you trying to define the pinnacle of perfection that every article
should strive for but ultimately very few will achieve? I'm trying to
find a workable compromise that will reduce the worst problems of OR
and alert the reader to weaknesses in the article.
If we actually have the tertiary source that tells us that there is
consensus among secondary sources, then great, we'll obviously cite
it. But if we don't, we're doing our readers a disservice by avoiding
any mention of the general trend that we've found in our research. By
contrast, we help our readers if we can convey "It looks to us that
most researchers agree with X, but don't take our word for it".
Steve, it's not a question of reaching for the "pinnacle of
perfection." It isn't difficult to write articles that conform to the
content policies. The articles are better for it too, and of more use
to the reader, who can check whether we've used decent sources and
whether we've been true to them. That's of more use than an anonymous
Wikipedian adding his own opinion based on his own studies that may be
correct or may be nonsense. Even very occasional editors are coming to
see the importance of using good sources correctly and every day I see
articles improving because of it. We're getting there.
Sarah