[WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 41, Issue 153

[Steve Bennett]

On 12/19/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, that's making things worse; we're now using weasel words
> ("appears that", "probably is") to cover our original research ("the
> consensus is"). If we only have primary sources, then we say what the
> primary sources say. If we have a secondary source that says "the
> consensus of legal opinion is", then great. If not, then *we* cannot
> become that secondary source that draws that conclusion, partly
> because we're not experts in this field, but mostly because it's
> original research.  Remember, the second you say "the consensus is",
> you need to be able to state exactly who considers there to be a
> "consensus".  Otherwise you are "introducing an analysis or synthesis
> of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that
> builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing
> that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source."

Are you trying to define the pinnacle of perfection that every article
should strive for but ultimately very few will achieve? I'm trying to
find a workable compromise that will reduce the worst problems of OR
and alert the reader to weaknesses in the article.

There's a hard line and a soft line on a lot of this stuff. Pick a
random article on Wikipedia. Does it meet WP:V? Probably not. Do you
rip it to shreds, moving all material to the talk page pending
sources? Or do you use common sense and only remove material for which
lack of sources is going to be harmful to someone?

If we actually have the tertiary source that tells us that there is
consensus among secondary sources, then great, we'll obviously cite
it. But if we don't, we're doing our readers a disservice by avoiding
any mention of the general trend that we've found in our research. By
contrast, we help our readers if we can convey "It looks to us that
most researchers agree with X, but don't take our word for it".

Steve