Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/24/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
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 In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or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?
Imagine you have three blogs which refer to a sequence of events. One blog has events A and B, and the other two have C, and D and E respectively. You simple sequence those events in chronological order, referring copiously. I don't believe it's a "novel" narrative to create an article which simply documents that the sequence of events A, E, B, C, D took place.
If you start saying B took place because of E (although no blog specifically said that), or start drawing parallels between events A/E and C/D, then you start heading into dangerous territory.
Okay, but imagine you have one blog, which describes said blogger doing a, b and c. Is that permissable? Because if it is, then it's permissable to game Wikipedia, to my mind, in that anything documented online is fair game.
To my mind, a novel narrative is one that can not be verified independent of the events themselves.