Alaisd
Archives
editNo Original Research
editAppreciate what you're trying to do, Alaisd, but please read up on Wikipedia policy, specifically the simplified ruleset... in particular, no original research and verifiability. Wantok 01:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I really do understand Wikipedia Policy, Wantok, think of this as my evil account. I think its a good idea to get the content in, then promote interest in these topics, and hopefully this will get the facts straightened by other wikipedians. It is difficult to cite references on PNG related articles that go to any sort of real depth. Most reading material falls a bit short. If you are able to verify or rebuke my claims with references, please do. Alaisd 03:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
So... you understand the policy, but you consider yourself above it? Sorry, that's a kind of harsh way of putting it, but that's what it sounds like you're saying. Or are you saying you want others to find the references because you can't be bothered? I understand where you're coming from - it can be difficult to find good sources for many PNG subjects. But you're saying another thing entirely - that you consider it perfectly OK to write original-research articles, and moreover you've actually removed a fact-tag on the basis that it's original research! There is source material out there ... and if there isn't, then the content doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a compendium of all knowledge - it's supposed to be a compendium of all knowledge that can be soundly referenced. It's one thing to write an article that has no references yet. It's quite another to remove a fact-tag and to defend the use of original research. Sorry, that was a bit of a rant. Wantok 04:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- The fact tag really was in a bad spot I really do understand your viewpoint. think of it this way:
- I am open about my policy bending/breaking, to encourage users to cite any references they might know of, and to allow the situation to be remedied.
- The policy against original research is explained. I am careful to stick by the intent of the policy.
- I do not define new terms.
- I do not intend to rebuke an already established premise.
- I do not want to introduce new theories or methods.
- I do not intend to give my reader a particular viewpoint or impression. This is actually why I do this. See Ok Tedi Mine and Ok Tedi River for an example. These articles if written by me would not be centralised around environmental issues, and contain POV statements.
- I agree this is not ideal, but I am careful to promite widely accepted fact, rather than POV. Alaisd 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I do intend to get through and reference my work. I know its not impossible. Alaisd 04:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I cleaned up a lot of this Sock Puppet's unverified crap, don't worry. Aliasd 07:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Priceless! Thanks for lightening up my day. And nice work on Tabubil. Wantok 00:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You uploaded this image which you claim to be your own work. On the upload page you agreed to place it under a Free license but did not specify which one. Please do so by replacing the commons:Template:Own work tag with a suitable copyright tag. Oxam Hartog 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
