Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Unlike NPOV I don't consider no-original-research to be a core (thus non-negotiable) principal of the project, rather it's just a useful rule.
Once wikipedia has dominated the known universe and has become the primary repository for all human knowledge it may become the case that the only way to get good peer review is to publish in wikipedia. It is already the case that I'd trust content vetted in wikipedia over some sources (notably the non peer-reviewed sort). I expect that we'll revise our procedures to address this when the time comes.
I'd disagree with that view---if Wikipedia is to be an *encyclopedia* by any reasonable definition of that term, it has to be a compendium of existing human knowledge, not a research journal publishing novel claims. I'm not opposed to a Wikimedia Foundation project that would include original research, but I think it would be problematic to include it as part of an encyclopedia. Perhaps eventually it would become a test of important research that it makes it into Wikipedia, but this would be after it's presumably published and discussed elsewhere; it shouldn't make its first appearance in an encyclopedia article, if this is to actually be an encyclopedia.
-Mark