On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 14:28, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
I doubt that would be enough to satisfy the no original research requirement. The idea linking back to a Wikimedia project as a source is
not
a new one, it has been tried many times and doesn't work.
The no original research policy was never intended to keep out material like this. Its purpose is to stop editors adding their own opinions to the text of articles. But we have always had original research in the form of images; indeed, we encourage it. We just have to be careful that images on a contentious article don't unfairly push the reader in a certain direction, but we normally take a very liberal view of what that means.
Adding video-taped interviews is the next step. Imagine articles about the Second World War containing video interviews by Wikipedians of people who lived through certain parts of it. There is no inherent POV issue there, so long as we observe NPOV, just as we do with text. Primary sources are already allowed, so long as used descriptively and not interpreted.
Sarah
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I had no idea we were so liberal about original research/primary sources from the countless hours I spent in #wikipedia-en-help telling new users why their cited references were rejected. Well, now we can finally have those thousands of articles about cure-alls and diet-pills, and penis-enlargement exercises, since the manufacturer's own research would satisfy those standards.
Now I wonder who I can cite for this picture of Bigfoot(allegedly) I found somewhere.
Theo