[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR

[Ray Saintonge]

zero 0000 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?
>
That sort of conclusion about the consensus is sensible, and I don't see 
how it could possibly be contrary to original research guidelines.  How 
you handle opinion B is more tricky.  You began by saying it was 
"popular";  there must have been some basis for saying that so the 
popularity needs to be dealt with.

Ec