[WikiEN-l] Original research

[jayjg]

On 3/26/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:
> > On 3/24/06, Keith D. Tyler <keith at keithtyler.com> wrote:
> > > To me, "original research" is when I perform an investigative task involving the
> > > scientific or statistical methods to get information that has not been
> > > determined before.
> > >
> > > Here's some examples.
> > >
> > > 1. I drive up to Seattle, and stand outside Boeing Field, and count the number
> > > of planes that fly in and out over the period of a day.
> > >
> > > 2. I call Boeing Field on the phone and ask them how many planes fly in and out
> > > every day.
> >
> > > To me, 1 is clearly OR, and 2 is not ...
> > >
> > > For some reason, though, contacting an authoritative source is OR, but finding a
> > > book from an authoritative source is not.
> > >
> > That's because if you cite a published source, readers can easily
> > check that it says what you say it does. They can't easily check that
> > the guy on the phone told you 500 planes fly in and out every day.
>
> Personal communications are valid to cite. All one needs to do to check is call the guy and ask
> the same question.

No, of course personal communications are not valid to cite.  You can
cite reliable published sources.

Jay.