Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/24/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
If reliable sources can't be cited, does that make the information original research? I mean, I can document periods of my life citing my
Depends what "can't" means. Information that has been published, but for which you do not have access to the source, is not original research.
I mean there are no reliable sources, not that I can't personally access them.
website and other online sources, but those aren't reliable, are they? Therefore I'm creating original research, aren't I?
Arguably yes, but that's more of a collateral damage case than what WP:NOR is really trying to prevent. The information would more likely be removed for violating WP:V.
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 In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or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?
Steve Block