The Cunctator wrote:
On 2/28/06, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com
<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/28/06, charles matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote
WP:V is supported by WP:NOR, a longstanding,
established policy. The
only way to show you're not doing OR is to produce a reliable source.
If you can't produce one, your edit may be removed, because OR is
never allowed.
Yes, but this doesn't override some other things, like trying to get
consensus.
The editors on a page are not allowed to reach a consensus to include
original research, just as they're not allowed to decide to ditch
NPOV. NOR and NPOV do override consensus.
You're a bit of a hardliner. Any form of analysis or recombination of
ideas, any reformulation of content is original research to some
degree. If there were no original research allowed at all, then the
work on Wikipedia would not be copyrightable, because copyright
requires some kind of creativity.
Let's not mix up "original content" with "original
research". Listing
statements A, B, and C in the order B, A, C because I think it's more
readable or a better explanation that way is original composition, but
there are still only three statements, so there is no research involved,
original or otherwise. Verifiability and NOR can't even come into play
until I go to add a new statement D.
I think where people get (sometimes justifiably) paranoid is that
the writing does have to be careful not to introduce new statements
inadvertantly. For instance, "B, A, and therefore C" is not just
a rhetorical improvement on "B, A, and C". It's an interesting
exercise, for instance, to update the carefully-chosen words of an
old 1911EB entry without changing the original author's meaning.
Stan