[WikiEN-l] Original research: our secret pleasure?

[William Pietri]

Jeff Raymond wrote:
> Ken Arromdee wrote:
>   
>> Well, a common, similar, case is popular culture articles in general, but
>> most of them have a loophole: a movie, book, etc. is itself a source for its
>> own content.  Using a pinball machine in a similar way is, of course, original
>> research, but it's also an excellent example of how Ignore All Rules applies
>> to anything, even original research.
>>     
> [...]The answer, of course, is to adjust the original research policy to 
> allow for such reasonable situations, not simply rely on IAR to muddle 
> through.
>   

Another option is to say that the rules are what we look to when we 
disagree over whether or not the article is good, or at least adequate. 
If there is no disagreement, then the article stands. Otherwise, we can 
start going through the rules, which can be looked at as a catalog of 
thinking about problems we've had a lot.

Personally, I feel that the rules we have, like the parts on an 
airplane, should be the minimum number necessary to achieve the goal. 
Anything else slows us down. Personally, until their's a problem, I'd 
rather leave WP:OR untouched. I think that Ken's case of rules-lawyer 
vandals is better solved by judicious application of [[WP:DICK]] rather 
than adding more rules.

William