On 8/20/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
What I've personally considered is that under
certain circumstances,
while original research cannot remain in an article, original research
can IMO justify leaving something OUT of an article. In other words,
I think that if someone can prove, or show to a good level of
certainty, that something is NOT true, no matter how well sourced, it
should be left out - even if that proof is done with non-published
sources.
This is precisely the sort of thing our original research policy is
meant to prohibit.
I thought the original research policy was meant to prohibit physics cranks.
We're here to summarize what has been reported,
not
to mount independent investigations to determine "the truth" on our
own. In physics, for example, we report what is widely written in
physics books and journals, and also significant minority views. If in
your own unpublished research you've determined that some of this is
incorrect, that's great, but doesn't justify leaving the information out
of a Wikipedia article unless and until you publish your new findings in
a physics journal, at which point we can then cite your view as a
contrary one.
In other words, you should be making your attempts to "prove, or show to
a good level of certainty, that something is NOT true" somewhere other
than Wikipedia, and then we can cite them.
-Mark
When the rules put us in a situation where we are forced to keep
blatantly false information in an article, I'd say it's time to invoke
the "break all rules" rule. At the very least it's time to bend the
rules as to what counts as an acceptable reliable source.
Anthony