[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR

[geni]

On 12/17/06, zero 0000 <nought_0000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here is a scenario that explores the boundaries of
> what counts as Original Reseach.  Suppose there is
> a legal issue about which there are two popular
> opinions, say A and B.
>
> Now I log into a well-known depository of legal
> journals and search for this issue.  I get about 20 hits.
> Then I look at each of these hits (articles published
> in peer-reviewed law journals) and in all cases the
> writer gives opinion A.
>
> Ok, so now I am itching to write in Wikipedia
> something like: "The consensus amongst legal
> scholars is that opinion A is correct"  (or similar),
> with a footnote stating the evidence.
>
> Can I do that?

No because you don't appear to have considered the role of publication
bias (obviously doing a funnel plot in this case is going to be trick
though).

> My sources were the best that exist,
> and everything I did can be verified easily by anyone
> with a good library.  On the other hand, I have drawn
> my own conclusions from these observations so
> maybe I'm afoul of the No Original Research policy.
>
> I tend to think it's ok because the conclusions I drew
> were the same as any reasonable person would draw,
> and these conclusions don't require any private
> information.

There problem is that they are not. Some might talk about publication
bias others might disspute elements of your search.
-- 
geni