# Wikipedia, even they should have limits. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [April 16, 2013, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-even-they-should-have-limits/655806 "2013-04-16T01:47:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Obeseus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbce88/32.png) [@Obeseus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Obeseus)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-even-they-should-have-limits/655806/21 "2013-04-20T19:04:13Z")
[quote=“BigT, post:20, topic:655806”] > [@](#): > > By their logic, what you did was still original research. You did the research yourself. You did not link to a **secondary source** that your data was correct. So all they had to go on was your word, and that fails the test of verifiability. Let me explain. Someone wrote a Wiki article and linked to various sources, including something I had written in a book. Some of the data in the Wiki article, however, linked to things in other books that differed with what I had written. I edited the erroneous information, and I explained my reasoning on the Talk page. The writer/compiler of the Wiki article disagreed with me and cited websites and other books despite those websites and other sources having no original citations. So, no, I had no expectation to post original research on Wikipedia. The problem is that the person who put together the Wiki article decided the other sources were correct simply because there were other sources that agreed, though it was just a case of one website copies another, etc., etc. I did original research that backs up what I wrote in the book (I’m not conducting original research on Wiki), and in a few cases my research corrects what people had long believed to be true. They don’t have to take my word for it. I have the primary source documentation. All they have is, “well these websites say this.” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-even-they-should-have-limits/655806/22 "2013-04-20T22:00:02Z")
I think Obeseus makes a valid point. Sometimes Wikipedia editors can become foolish in following the letter of the law. The “no original research” rule, for example, is generally good as a means of filtering out unsubstantiated nonsense. But all knowledge was original research at some point. Somebody like Obeseus can conduct valid research with verifiable evidence to support it but be prohibited from posting his findings. Ironically, somebody like me could then go in and post the same thing Obeseus had posted and my information would be acceptable because I’d be able to cite Obeseus. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-even-they-should-have-limits/655806/23 "2013-04-22T19:28:02Z")
My only wiki edit came years ago when a couple friends of mine were drunk and decided to go in and add extra 0’s to the weights for wiki entries of fatter NBA players. Eddy Curry, Tractor Traylor, Mike Sweetney, Shaq, Barkley, etc. The big names were almost instantly changed - much to our delight and amazement (instantly probably constituted 15 mins). Sweetney’s weight remained at whale-like amounts for a few weeks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-even-they-should-have-limits/655806.md?page=1)