[WikiEN-l] The 3RR policy should not always be blindly followed

[Charles Matthews]

JAY JG wrote

> >Charles Matthews wrote:
> >
> >When something is already unverifiable, highly partisan POV, I wonder why
> >it
> >needs to be labelled 'original research' as well.
>
> Because what is "POV" is often highly contested, especially by people who
> aren't that familiar with the policy.

I'm not going to dispute that.  On the other hand, these are the people to
whom an explanation of the nature of POV writing, in WP terms, will be most
helpful.

>Original research is often easier to
> discern and prove when the person in question has no sources to back up
his
> theory or belief.  Not that I haven't run into the "this isn't original
> research, these are simply the facts" defence as well.

Trouble is, simply producing a source which agrees - for example some
conspiracy theorist - and citing that, then may just sanitise the
contribution, without improving the article.  Getting the poster further
along the learning curve of Wikipedianhood, rather than just making the
point, is also very relevant.  So we could perhaps agree that 'winning'
rhetoric is not always the most desirable way of handling things.

Charles