charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Thomas Dalton" wrote
I think it's best to stop talking in terms of original research and talk about reliability of sources (which is the main reason the OR rule exists, it's a special case of WP:RS).
Historically that's quite wrong. 'Original research' came into policyland as a Jimbo intervention against cranks on the science pages. 'Citing sources' was one of things that floats up from the frontline areas of highly contentious pages. 'Verifiability' was an attempt to amalgamate NOR and 'cite sources'; and RS is a needed guideline to support our notion of verifiability.
It is not exactly satisfactory that our policies have this kind of path-dependence (in some sense one has to understand why they got there). But the history does have a role to play in explaining things. Especially because consensus on policies is hardly perfect.
Well understated!
I too remember the context of the original original research dictum. Historical antecedents are too easily forgotten. What has 2,000 years of biblical misinterpretation done for us? I have no problem with path-dependence but perhaps I interpret that concept differently to allow different standards for different kinds information; this allows for stricter standards in living biographies but more flexibility in matters of fiction.
The prohibition on original research has roots in not wanting people to make things up, not just in observable facts but also in novel interpretations that may harbour a hidden logical fallacy. Hoaxes owe their success to people who make superficially credible arguments.
Ec