On 04/04/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
By getting them published somewhere. Unpublished true
facts are
original research by the generally accepted Wikipedia definition.
So if there were an article about, say, my grandfather, and I edited
it to add something that was true (say, that he was in the RAF during
the war) but unpublished, this information is not suitable for
inclusion? (Surely notability does not imply that all relevant facts
on a topic have been published.)
Anyway, I was under the impression that "original research" was taking
facts A, B, and C about topic X and concluding N. In the case that I
am following up, I've asked Z, an authority on X, if A is true, and
they have confirmed that it is. But according to your definition, this
proven fact A must float in limbo because it is unpublished. That
doesn't feel right.
--
Earle Martin
http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/