-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Sandifer [mailto:Snowspinner@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 08:43 AM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?
On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 06:18:49 -0700, "Seraphim
Blade"
<seraphimbladewikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Generally, "being right" is not a
defense to NOR. NOR helps to
preserve relevance and importance of information as well as
correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this
matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first? If the
guy's that concerned, tell him to suggest the story to a
newspaper. If
the paper decides it's correct and important enough to publish,
there's the source!
I completely agree.
I completely disagree.
Straightforward interpretation of primary sources is not original
research. It never has been, and it needs to remain that way because
of the number of notable articles about which there are not good or
usable comprehensive secondary sources.
-Phil
It would be common sense to adopt this position. I support it. Why should be deny users
the right to add what they know? Published or not?
Fred