And where do you get the idea that I was talking about "original research"?
Original research is banned.
Ec may disagree with that policy, and he's welcome to propose a change
to that, but that's how the policy stands at present
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:30:07 +0000, R E Broadley
>Thanks for your reply. I've recently heard that one of the things that
>Wikipedia is not is that it is not a place for "original research". I
>accepted this once I heard it, but your last sentence now has me
>wondering if the opinion on this is split.
>Can we add content that is unproven by the wider scientific community
>with a boilerplate, or is it barred altogether?
>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>If we accept only the opinion of experts we end up putting ourselves
>>into an elitist box, and that strikes me as very un-wiki. Ultimately,
>>the facts should speak for themselves without regard to who is
>>Proponents of mainstream "science" ofte go to great effort to
>>discredit ideas which appear contrary to their own, and in doing so
>>can manage to make themselves look even more foolish than the people
>>whom they are confronting.. It is not necessary to pepper an article
>>through with "they believe . . " or "the discredited idea that .
>>.", etc. The first burden of proof in a scientific concept rests with
>>the proponents. If they fail to carry that burden then there is
>>nothing there for the opponents to disprove. For many of these
>>articles a simple piece of boilerplate, perhaps as the second
>>paragraph, should be enough to satisfy NPOV. It could read, "The
>>subject of this article is considered unproven by the wider scientific
>>community. Users relying on the information in this article do so at
>>their own risk."
>>Keeping things simple can save a lot of flames.