Delirium wrote:
IMO, this is part of the gray area of "original research". Is writing an article on the war in Somalia directly from news reports original historical research? It depends partly on how the article is written---the more synthesis of narratives and analysis of the overall situation, the more it's treading into research territory. Once secondary sources do appear, it's important to try to get away from that gray area as much as possible and reduce our use of the contemporary news sources. So I can see your view that it would be better to just wait until the sources exist before writing an article at all. That would certainly be sounder, but I think our articles on recent topics provide an important enough service that it's worth muddling through the gray areas anyway, so long as they do eventually get returned to.
When speaking of original research we always need to remember why such a rule arose: to prevent the more loony ideas from having a podium. Articles on current events need to be layered. For some of the of the basic information such as who invaded, and on what date newspaper reports are as reliable as anything. People are anxious to find out more about these things as they happen, and government sources and big news media often leave the impression that they are biased. If we put up early information that is questionable it's easier for us to admit we were wrong and make the necessary corrections than it is for governments and big media.
Our coverage of events like the London subway bombing or the Indian Ocean tsunami managed to keep on top of events better that the standard news outlets. This offered a degree of accountability that was not generally available elsewhere. Other aspects develop more slowly, like the stranger conspiracy theories about the 9/11 events. If those theories are out there they need to be taken into account and a neutral approach to such things requires a fair representation of both sides of the story.
Media accountability could become a big issue. The chasm between media investment interests and government spin on one hand, and free-for-all speculation on the other requires some kind of neutrality somewhere in the middle. NPOV provides a framework for accountability. It is not inimical to original research as long as there is ample room to correct the errors in that are inevitable in original research. Put in other terms reliability is not as important as accountability.
Ec