Timeline for Should we expect original research to occur on this site?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 8, 2013 at 7:15 | comment | added | Oddthinking Mod | Evan: Yes, it could be that @Sklivvz is acting completely out of character, and every single, ostensibly sensible, reason he is giving to explain his actions is to hide his secret and unrelenting campaign to grab power by... um... validating the claim in a tweet, but until you have any evidence apart from personal incredulity, please stop the character attacks. | |
| Dec 8, 2013 at 0:18 | comment | added | Evan Carroll | @Sklivvz so what, what did I utilize to answer your question? multiplication and division are just arithmetic too. Then again, I don't for a second think you rejected it because of the method. It was the conclusion.. Essentially, "FIND A WAY TO VERIFY MY BIAS, OR I WILL MOD-DELETE YOUR ANSWER." | |
| Dec 7, 2013 at 10:44 | comment | added | Sklivvz Mod | Evan, this is arithmetic, not research. Nobody is discussing the use of arithmetic. Your answer doesn't make any sense with this example. | |
| Dec 7, 2013 at 2:00 | comment | added | ChrisW | Also I thought that this is not a very good question. But, better to give such a question no answer (and a downvote if you want to) than to give it a poor-quality answer. | |
| Dec 7, 2013 at 1:57 | comment | added | ChrisW | @Articuno Conversely I thought that this answer was an outstanding example of "original research": using well-referenced high-school physics and web sleuthing. IMO it's an example of why the accepted answer to this meta-topic is that original research should (occasionally/exceptionally) be allowed. | |
| Dec 7, 2013 at 0:31 | comment | added | ChrisW | IMO this question is an example of why original research should not usually be allowed. If you do the exercise in your head ("More fibre causes bigger stools which are harder to pass: that's obvious!") then the answer is purely theoretical and is also wrong (contradicted by experimental fact). Conversely if you try to answer by experiment, your result is probably worse that any 'real' (publishable) experiment: for example because you'd be using a sample size of 1, lacking a proper control, etc. | |
| Dec 7, 2013 at 0:20 | comment | added | user5582 | @Oddthinking If you are exercising skill and judgement that is not so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise, I would consider that original research. | |
| Dec 7, 2013 at 0:06 | comment | added | Oddthinking Mod | This highlights the difficulty with the term "original research". We have several answers that use simple multiplication and division that have garnered votes without controversy. That appears to be community supported. The problem starts occurring when (a) the premises aren't referenced, and (b) the CHOICE of which operation to apply isn't referenced (or immediately obvious). We get answers that, while more sophisticated, are equally unjustified as answers to "How old is the shepherd?" | |
| Dec 6, 2013 at 23:53 | comment | added | ChrisW | That somewhat agrees with my answer: which is to allow it, if the topic is simple enough that we can "peer-review" it ourselves: which is probably true for school-level topics such as arithmetic and simple physics; and much less true for university-level topics such as medicine (and economics). | |
| Dec 6, 2013 at 23:28 | history | answered | Evan Carroll | CC BY-SA 3.0 |