Looks like a silly idea to me. This is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia, and changing this now will change the nature of Wikipedia. Also the places where OR is common in Wikipedia (like the Plant WikiProject) show that the results tend to be atrocious: OR tends to lead to nonsense. - Brya 10:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, changes ARE comming, perhaps even changes to the nature of Wikipedia deeper than this. It may be irritating comming from someone who just landed here on a parachute (me), but it's merely an observation. Perhaps the atrocity of OR results so far begotten by Wikipedia is because that OR is being carried out by half educated people (like me), and Wikipedia remains unatractive as a workspace for the academic community, a theme now being widely discussed here and elswere? Ok, perhaps nonsense isn't any less common in academic papers. Perhaps allowing OR doesn't necessarily mean being open to publish every investigator's whimsical lucubrations. Perhaps some of it will have to be filtered out. In my very humble opinion, even if 99 percent gets filtered out, that remaining one percent is probably worth it.
- The problem with this discussion, however, may be that it needs to be brought to specifics. It is important to understand that as an Encyclopaedia, Wikipedia's vocation is not to issue research papers, papers not yet validated elsewere by peer review; for the simple reason that an encyclopaedia pledges to be an entirely trustworthy source of reference to the public (another topic under wide discussion). But take a look, if you please, at our article on Panama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama . Focus, for instance, on the culture section - it's a national embarrassement. And let me tell you it's a gap you won't easily fill without recurring to OR, and even so, you might have to instigate that research. The country intelectual comunity being very scarce indeed and generally affected by a strange squint that diverts their attention from their own country's extraordinarily rich and important cultural heritage to look at Europe and north America instead - Where are you going to find your references? Does it make encyclopaedic sense to publish complete, very well referenced articles on breakfast cereals and ignore the whole culture of a nation because either it hasn't been studied or the studies aren't published? Oh boy, excuse my long-windedness, I just got carried away, didnt I? Saludos, -- Thamus joyfulnoise 18:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Original research can be beneficial if it's about a feature in Japanese video game, vivid details about a local attraction that is written by a local person or minute details about newspaper comic strips, for example. Original research that doesn't slander a person, place, or thing should be encouraged at all time. However, if it's a bad rumor or merely local gossip, that kind of original research is always OFF LIMITS. GVnayR 20:24, 11 October 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 00:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is where we discuss this but I disagree with this proposal in it's entirety. No original research is what gives Wikipedia it's credibility. Without the WP:NOR policy certain articles would soon fill with speculation and fancruft, especialy video game, comic, anime and other less scholarly articles. I just feel that if we hope for Wikipedia to be taken seriously we must not allow original research because that may lead to speculation and guesswork. Thank you for taking the time to read my opinion. I Feel Tired 03:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposal:Add or redesign tab for original research is answering both of your concerns and - according to my opinion - will convert Wikipedia into a # 1 source for real scientific data.Malach
I'm going wild for this idea. Malach