On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:33:30AM +0000, wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org wrote:

The recently written "No original research" provision appears to focus on science, and "new scientific theories" and completely ignores other areas of study. The most disturbing aspect is that it uses Jimbo's comments from the mailing list as though he were speaking "ex cathedra". Jimbo has on several occasions stated that he avoids editing articles to avoid a misperception that he is exercising his dictatorial powers. There are times when he has opinions like any others of us and should have a right to express them without creating a big splash in the wading pool.. From my perspective, the degree of authority with which he speaks should depend on how close the subject is to the core values of the general undertaking and its operational necessities. His recognition that other projects within the family will develop their own policies based on an infinite range of parameters speaks to that.

That was added to "What Wikipedia is not" way back in January 2003. It has recently been modified to state "no *primary* research", which is a better description of what the rule was intended to cover.

Using Jimbo's mailing list opinion as a technique for imposing a particular POV does not address the issue. That article does appear to give objective criteria for determining when a scientific article is to be viewed as original research. It gives no reason for why these articles should be excluded other than "Jimbo says so." It is completely silent about original research in fields outside of "science", and how to identify it In one sense every article in Wikipedia is original research except those that plagiarize another source.

See above. Yes, this rule has problems for areas not covered by academic journals, but so far these kind of disputes have not come up that often in such areas.

As far as "Jimbo says so", I think you'll find that this rule has wide, though not necessarily universal, support, for very good reasons. One is that original research has not yet gone through the peer review of experts in the field and is thus unverified and possibly unverifiable. It is therefore an excellent tool for weeding through patent nonsense.

The fact is that the history of science is strewn with these false steps and original ideas which led nowhere. Their historical value is what makes them encyclopedic, not their content and not their theories. Their dubious value to science needs to be remarked but not ridiculed, and not obsessively disproved. (Remember, the burden of proof for any scientific theory rests with its proponent; if he hasn't carried that burden it is sufficient to say that as simply as possible.) Most of these ideas can be adequately covered in a single page, and take much less space than what is used arguing about them. Why should contemporary crackpots be viewed with any less regard than those from the last century?

If a crackpot theory attracts enough attention, Wikipedia should write about it - case in point, [[Timecube]]. Until that attention is gained through other means, we shouldn't.

If the Wikipedia had existed back in the 1530's and user:Copernicus had added a piece on [[Sun-centred universe theory]] we would have been perfectly correct to delete the article after listing on VfD and suggest that he first publish his work elsewhere.