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.
[...]
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.
And how precisely do you propose to simultaneously take care of both of
these things? Wikipedia is not in a position to determine truth, only
to report on what others have said. It's possible that some parts of
physics may be incorrect, and you may be absolutely sure of it, but
Wikipedia isn't the place to publish that research. I don't think it's
the place to publish novel historical, biographical, mathematical, or
any other research either, regardless of how sure you are that you have
"the truth" that every published source is missing.
-Mark