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

[Seraphim Blade]

Agreed. Allowing "straightforward interpretation" guts NOR. What is
straightforward, and what is over the line? What if I think my
interpretation is straightforward and you don't? And why should we be
fulfilling (or usurping) the role of secondary sources-distinguishing
not only what is true and factual, but is important and relevant?

Seraphimblade

On 4/2/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>