On 6/6/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
A open
invitation to original research would be a bad thing... but at
the same time the prohibition against it denies the ability to print
common sense to those in a field... Despite the handwaving claims to
the contrary, it can be quite difficult (measured against the value of
including the text) to find a citation for something that is common
sense in a given field but not necessarily outside it. Fortunately,
at least on en, we look the other way on original research unless
there is a dispute.
The main "handwaving claims" have been that this is in fact a real problem.
Whenever the topic's come up, I've asked for an example where this has been
a problem, including in response to your emails to the list claiming it.
Neither you nor anyone else have provided one.
Are you asking where it's a problem finding citeable material?
It's not currently a problem because no one complains unless there is
controversy.
I'm not handwaving, but I also not eager to go pointing out example
for fear that people will go 'fix' perfectly good text. Go load
almost any article on a piece of music or a composer, you might find
that is says the work contains "lush harmonies" or "thick chords"..
No
see the groves citation at the bottom and look it up and you likely
wont find that description... but there is nothing wrong there, the
description is accurate, undisputed, and would be obvious to anyone
skilled in the subject.
So of course the counter claim is that isn't original research because
it's common sense, but that's not the case, it's only obvious to
someone versed in the field. ... and everything known is obvious to
someone, so if we are expansive in our interpretation of common sense
we will eventually include everything.