[WikiEN-l] Original research

[Steve Block]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/24/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> If reliable sources can't be cited, does that make the information
>> original research?  I mean, I can document periods of my life citing my
> 
> Depends what "can't" means. Information that has been published, but
> for which you do not have access to the source, is not original
> research.

I mean there are no reliable sources, not that I can't personally access 
them.

>> website and other online sources, but those aren't reliable, are they?
>> Therefore I'm creating original research, aren't I?
> 
> Arguably yes, but that's more of a collateral damage case than what
> WP:NOR is really trying to prevent. The information would more likely
> be removed for violating WP:V.

Well, I'm going by ''Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to 
refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not 
been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means 
unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; 
or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, 
statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's 
co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical 
interpretation".''

So creating a narrative which doesn't exist elsewhere, for example 
citing blog entries to create a story, that's clearly original research, 
yes?

Steve Block


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 24/03/06