Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Now you open up the question, "What is novel?" I absolutely agree that we are ill-equipped to judge novel thinking, Too many look at this from the distorted extremist lenses. If the dozens of sources that I use for a historical argument are all "peer reviewed" sources my argument is no longer novel. If we follow the severely restrictive approach to "original research" that some people are proposing our encyclopedia would be full of nothing but dumbed-down pap.
I suppose I'd define "novel" as "making a substantial claim that hasn't been made before", which is obviously subjective, but I don't think it's possible to make a clear-cut definition.
For example, one of the culinary articles (which I forget at the moment) had a section on the etymology of a word that was essentially a reconstruction of the word's history personally done by a Wikipedian, through a combination of primary and secondary sources. That, to me, is original etymological research and not appropriate for first publication in Wikipedia. We instead should cite only published etymologies, such as "the OED claims this, but some other guy in his book _Blah_ claims this other thing."
On Wiktionary if someone were to present such etymological research I would be inclined to say, "Well done!" I would usually not consider it as "original" but as a synthesis of existing sources. The OED is a well-respected source, but it's not the only one that I use. More often than not the difference between the OED and other etymologies is a matter of detail and degree, and not of completely contradictory views. I also regard the secondary sources as published etymologies. As yet, I know of no rule that confines us to a set of select orthodox etymologies. I read the term "published etymology" as any published work that deals in whole or in part with etymology no matter when it was published.
Ec