[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

[Slim Virgin]

On 3/21/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > > "In 2002 the owners of the Mega Society, a high IQ society, filed suit
> > > against Langan and his wife, Gina LoSasso, for unauthorized use of the
> > > society's trademarks and trade names.[29][30][31]"
> > >
> > > This is original research?
> > Yes.  To my knowledge, this has never been written up in any newspaper,
> > magazine, or book.  It was discovered by reading websites that I think
> > we would all agree are not themselves reliable sources and by
> > referencing official court documents.  The case, what happened in it,
> > the outcome, are all matters of interpretation involving original
> > research
>
> I do not agree that stating that A sued B, when you have a court document
> stating that A sued B, is a "matter of interpretation involving original
> research."  In fact, I find this to be quite strange.
>
> You can argue that it's a notability problem if the only source is the court
> document, but poor notability is not original research.
>
Poor notability is a form of original research. The core of the OR
concept is a Wikipedian writing up his own ideas; or putting two and
two together based on primary sources he's gathered together himself;
or seeking to highlight incidents that no secondary source has thought
to highlight. The point is: when in doubt, find a good secondary
source.

Sarah