CZ Talk:Original Research Policy: Difference between revisions
imported>Harald van Lintel (stat¨) |
imported>Harald van Lintel (Put down considerations for Citizendium's "NOR" policy) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Original Research Policy needs to be worked out == | == Original Research Policy still needs to be worked out == | ||
I came here from page [ ], and found a blank page. Before I do elaborate editing, and certainly before starting new articles, I like the rules to be a little | I came here from page [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ_Talk:Approval_Standards], | ||
As the term is identical to that of Wikipedia, | which states: | ||
''Not original research. Articles should be aimed to be excellent encyclopedia articles, and thus are summations of what is known about a topic. Hence, while articles may sum up their topics in novel ways, they should not do so in ways that imply new theories or analyses that in academic contexts would require peer review for publishing. In other words, they should not contain original research or observations. See the original research policy.'' | |||
(Note: "that in academic contexts would require peer review for publishing" ?? That doesn't seem applicable to anything!) | |||
However, I found a blank page. | |||
Before I do elaborate editing, and certainly before starting new articles, I like the rules to be a little sharper defined. | |||
As the term is identical to that of Wikipedia, Larry certainly had in mind something similar to the policy of the same name in Wikipedia (Larry please correct me if I'm wrong). However, I don't recall to have seen in Wikipedia a summary phrasing as here above; and also CZ's neutrality policy is slightly different. Thus the adapted policy will itself probably be a bit original! | |||
Revision as of 16:43, 27 November 2007
== Original Research Policy still needs to be worked out ==
I came here from page [1], which states:
Not original research. Articles should be aimed to be excellent encyclopedia articles, and thus are summations of what is known about a topic. Hence, while articles may sum up their topics in novel ways, they should not do so in ways that imply new theories or analyses that in academic contexts would require peer review for publishing. In other words, they should not contain original research or observations. See the original research policy.
(Note: "that in academic contexts would require peer review for publishing" ?? That doesn't seem applicable to anything!)
However, I found a blank page.
Before I do elaborate editing, and certainly before starting new articles, I like the rules to be a little sharper defined. As the term is identical to that of Wikipedia, Larry certainly had in mind something similar to the policy of the same name in Wikipedia (Larry please correct me if I'm wrong). However, I don't recall to have seen in Wikipedia a summary phrasing as here above; and also CZ's neutrality policy is slightly different. Thus the adapted policy will itself probably be a bit original!