On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Sarah <slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 14:28, Theo10011 <de10...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I doubt that would be enough to satisfy the no original research > > requirement. The idea linking back to a Wikimedia project as a source is > not > > a new one, it has been tried many times and doesn't work. > > The no original research policy was never intended to keep out > material like this. Its purpose is to stop editors adding their own > opinions to the text of articles. But we have always had original > research in the form of images; indeed, we encourage it. We just have > to be careful that images on a contentious article don't unfairly push > the reader in a certain direction, but we normally take a very liberal > view of what that means. > > Adding video-taped interviews is the next step. Imagine articles about > the Second World War containing video interviews by Wikipedians of > people who lived through certain parts of it. There is no inherent POV > issue there, so long as we observe NPOV, just as we do with text. > Primary sources are already allowed, so long as used descriptively and > not interpreted. > > Sarah > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >
I had no idea we were so liberal about original research/primary sources from the countless hours I spent in #wikipedia-en-help telling new users why their cited references were rejected. Well, now we can finally have those thousands of articles about cure-alls and diet-pills, and penis-enlargement exercises, since the manufacturer's own research would satisfy those standards. Now I wonder who I can cite for this picture of Bigfoot(allegedly) I found somewhere. Theo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l