*Removing* information from the wikipedia that cannot be verified is not original research; particularly if you post your (lack of) findings on talk first. ADDING information to the wikipedia can be.
On 31/05/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
the problem comes when you say the game works one way, and I try it and think it works a different way. we have no way to resolve this except to discard both findings. DGG
On 5/27/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/27/07, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Original research is when you *synthesize* multiple sources or ideas together and then edit that into the Wikipedia. In this case there's ultimately only one source, the game itself.
You can do original research with one source if you publish new theories about it, for instance.
In the case of a video game or pinball table or the like, I don't think checking with an actual instance of the game is original research for simple, easily confirmed facts.
However, doing e.g. a statistical analysis of the scoring, or attempting to work out the logic employed by a computer-controlled opponent in a video came, are both good examples of original research. So is adding your original idea of how to beat the game.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l