On 12/17/06, zero 0000 nought_0000@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.