On 12/17/06, zero 0000 <nought_0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Here is a scenario that explores the boundaries of
what counts as Original Reseach. Suppose there is
a legal issue about which there are two popular
opinions, say A and B.
Now I log into a well-known depository of legal
journals and search for this issue. I get about 20 hits.
Then I look at each of these hits (articles published
in peer-reviewed law journals) and in all cases the
writer gives opinion A.
Ok, so now I am itching to write in Wikipedia
something like: "The consensus amongst legal
scholars is that opinion A is correct" (or similar),
with a footnote stating the evidence.
Can I do that? My sources were the best that exist,
and everything I did can be verified easily by anyone
with a good library. On the other hand, I have drawn
my own conclusions from these observations so
maybe I'm afoul of the No Original Research policy.
I tend to think it's ok because the conclusions I drew
were the same as any reasonable person would draw,
and these conclusions don't require any private
information. I admit it is a boundary case though.
What do you think?
It's obviously original research. You could certainly state that "A
number of legal scholars have stated that...", with your reference,
but it's not up to you to decide that "legal consensus" is, it's up to
experts in the area.
Jay.