Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/24/06, Steve Block
<steve.block(a)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unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas;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
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 24/03/06