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

[Fred Bauder]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Sandifer [mailto:Snowspinner at gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 08:43 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?
>
>
>
>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

It would be common sense to adopt this position. I support it. Why should be deny users the right to add what they know? Published or not?

Fred