As i understand it, the"no origanal research" means tha you cant just post some idea you have into wikipedia, however if a wikipedian was to post some idea to a website or in a journal or whatever and then some other wikimedian (it is important that it is not the same wikimedian as the one who did the research because that would be self promotion) includes that POV in an article (so long as it is appropriate, labled as just one POV of many, and has where appropriate warnings that the content may be suspect quality) then it is fine.
If you think about it, everything in every scientific journal is origanal research. It is fine for wikimedia to quote these, but not for wikimedia to be thier origanal publisher.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]] rjs
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:30:07 +0000, R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Ray
Thanks for your reply. I've recently heard that one of the things that Wikipedia is not is that it is not a place for "original research". I accepted this once I heard it, but your last sentence now has me wondering if the opinion on this is split.
Can we add content that is unproven by the wider scientific community with a boilerplate, or is it barred altogether?
Cheers, Ed
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If we accept only the opinion of experts we end up putting ourselves into an elitist box, and that strikes me as very un-wiki. Ultimately, the facts should speak for themselves without regard to who is expressing them.
Proponents of mainstream "science" ofte go to great effort to discredit ideas which appear contrary to their own, and in doing so can manage to make themselves look even more foolish than the people whom they are confronting.. It is not necessary to pepper an article through with "they believe . . " or "the discredited idea that . . .", etc. The first burden of proof in a scientific concept rests with the proponents. If they fail to carry that burden then there is nothing there for the opponents to disprove. For many of these articles a simple piece of boilerplate, perhaps as the second paragraph, should be enough to satisfy NPOV. It could read, "The subject of this article is considered unproven by the wider scientific community. Users relying on the information in this article do so at their own risk."
Keeping things simple can save a lot of flames. Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l