Wikipedia (strongly) and Skeptics.StackExchange (weakly) have adopted a policy of "no original research" for their articles; since this is a policy, one would assume that original research is problematic.
Wikipedia's article on No Original Research gives scant justification. The closest it comes is the following trichotomy:
- If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia
So it doesn't make any claims about the reliability of the information, just that if it's worth knowing, it's already known. It is unclear, to me at least, what the problematic downside is, however. (Simply a technical limitation of disk space or search times for Wikipedia?)
Skeptics Meta includes, as an answer from a moderator, the claim
however, due to the nature of Skeptics, the community needs to enforce the idea of no original research to encourage healthy voting.
Given that the other StackExchange sites, most notably StackOverflow, are positively full of "original research" (e.g. on how to solve a particular type of programming problem) and have healthy voting, this claim seems, at first glance, to be questionable.
Thus, I wonder whether it's been observed that presentation of original research causes problems, and under which conditions, or whether the belief is not currently supported by evidence.