[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR

[jayjg]

On 12/18/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was speaking to the particular example given, where there are two
> > popular positions on the subject held by lay people, while all expert
> > accounts support only one of those positions. In this context, where
> > all experts who have written on the subject have agreed with the same
> > position, surely it is not original research to say so.
>
> It would be easiest in this case just to state it as fact and cite the
> sources you've found.
>
> "While some members of the public believe X [cite], legally, Y is
> correct [cite][cite][cite]."
>
> You are allowed to assume that your sources are correct, as long as
> they appear reliable (something published in a law journal counts as
> reliable). That's why we cite sources, so in the event that the source
> is wrong it is clear who is at fault, and we can't be charged with
> libel, or whatever else the consequences of false information may be.


No, the law is much trickier and more gray than that, and Wikipedia
editors need to get out of the notion that they can use original
research to outline arguments and pontificate about what the "true
facts" are.  As well, we really have no idea what people believe, we
only know what they say and do.  Thus, you can state,
"A number of authors have stated X[cite][cite], while legal scholars
have stated Y[cite][cite][cite]", but that's as far as we can go, and
indeed, as far as we need to go. It makes the point equally well
without the smell of argumentative POV-pushing.

Jay.