I am smiling at the thought that you think this proposal includes mine, and I see yours also as a part of mine (an important part too). But whatever the truth may be, perhaps the most significant fact is us both (and so many others) are thinking about the same issues. I can't wait to see where Wikipedia is going to be in five years...-- Thamus joyfulnoise 18:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I endorse this idea
I am currently a graduate student. While pursuing publication-worthy scientific advances, I periodically stumble across advances that either do not fit well with my dissertation topic, or are not significant enough to warrant writing a paper for a top-tier peer-reviewed journal or conference. Sometimes I obtain experimental results that are interesting, but that I do not publish. This happens when the results are not sufficient to justify a top-tier paper, or they warrant further exploration in multiple paths, and I simply do not have time to perform the necessary follow-up experiments in all possible directions.
I know that these small bits of work would be useful to other researchers in the same field. A special place in Wikipedia for original research would be the ideal place for me to describe my ideas, experiments, and results. I believe that the small ideas of many people may ultimately add up to be competitive with even the big-name journals. This is an opportunity for Wikipedia to impact the world for good. Please make a special place somewhere for original research. --Headlessplatter 01:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that original research should always have a place in Wikipedia as long as the information isn't slanderous, profane, or consisting of hate literature in any shape or form. GVnayR 20:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The question about the benefit of end users sounds like a bot added paragraph. Who if not the end-users will benefit from Wikipedia as a wide source for useful research? Malach 19:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Got it. It was not a bot, but an editor spammed all the talk pages. See Village_pump#Spamming_the_talk_pages_-_an_explanation. Malach 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm going wild for this proposal, but cannot find its original creator to discuss the details. Can anybody help? Malach
Why must we protect all original research from deletion?
This superfluous requirement makes this feature an obvious target for vandals, makes the feature seem infeasible, and is not really necessary to achieve the goal of allowing original research. Why not add a tab where original research is allowed, but allow worthless content to be deleted according to Wikipedia's usual procedures (except for the "no original research" criterion, of course)? Let's not try to solve too many problems with one feature. If you would like to propose a "nothing here can be deleted" tab, let's propose that as a separate feature, and debate it independently.--22.214.171.124 18:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)