[WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?

[John Lee]

On 4/2/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 06:18:49 -0700, "Seraphim Blade"
> > <seraphimbladewikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Generally, "being right" is not a defense to NOR. NOR helps to
> >> preserve relevance and importance of information as well as
> >> correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this
> >> matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first? If the
> >> guy's that concerned, tell him to suggest the story to a
> >> newspaper. If
> >> the paper decides it's correct and important enough to publish,
> >> there's the source!
> >
> > I completely agree.
>
> I completely disagree.
>
> Straightforward interpretation of primary sources is not original
> research. It never has been, and it needs to remain that way because
> of the number of notable articles about which there are not good or
> usable comprehensive secondary sources.
>
> -Phil


We're a tertiary source. If we go about the business of citing primary
sources when there are no extant secondary sources, we've deviated from our
purpose as an encyclopaedia.

Johnleemk