Delirium wrote:
Well, I'd expand the ban on "original
research" slightly further than
just that. An article that makes no new low-level claims, but
nonethless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively
original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up
most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to
produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to
primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if
their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge
whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a
reasonable one.
I agree completely.
I think in part this is just a symptom of an unfortunate tendency of
disrespect for history as a professional discipline. Some who
completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of
physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and
synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same
thing applies to history.
--Jimbo