A problem with "No Original Research"

Wikipedia has a policy: No original research. The upshot of that policy is:

This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.

What's wrong with this policy? Well... Let's say there's a story about a person, how they were involved in a covert op in the late 1960's. According to this story, the person was waiting in Country A, planning a coup in Country B, expecting help in the form of air support from Country C. One way to check that story would be to call the person's publicly known employer from the time, and ask if the person took a leave of absence during the relevant timeframe. While I could make such a call, I couldn't put the results into a Wikipedia article -- because it would be "original research." (I might yet do it, though, for my own curiosity.)

Running this through the rock tumbler of my mind, it all reminds me of some passages from Foundation by Isaac Asimov, 1951:

"(W)hy rely on him (for an archeological question)? Why not go to Arcturus and study the remains for yourself?"

Lord Dorwin raised his eyebrows and took a pinch of snuff hurriedly. "Why, whatever for, my dear fellow?"

"To get the information firsthand, of course."

"But where's the necessity? It seems an uncommonly roundabout and hopelessly rigamarolish method of getting anywhere. Look here, now, I've got the works of all the old masters -- the great archeologists of the past. I weigh them against each other -- balance the disagreements -- analyze the conflicting statements -- decide which is probably correct -- and come to a conclusion. That is the scientific method. At least" -- patronizingly -- "as I see it. How insufferably crude it would be to go to Arcturus, or to Sol, for instance, and blunder about, when the old masters have covered the ground so much more effectually than we could possibly hope to do." (pg. 65)

*^*^*

"It isn't just you. It's the whole Galaxy. Pirenne heard Lord Dorwin's idea of scientific research. Lord Dorwin thought the way to be a good archeologist was to read all the books on the subject -- written by men who were dead for centuries. He thought that the way to solve archeological puzzles was to weigh the opposing authorities. And Pirenne listened and made no objections. Don't you see there's something wrong with that?"

Again the note of near pleading in his voice.

Again no answer. He went on: "And you men and half of Terminus as well are just as bad. We sit here, considering the Encyclopedia the all-in-all. We consider the greatest end of science is the classification of past data. It is important, but is there no further work to be done? We're receding and forgetting, don't you see?" (pg. 74)

I admire Wikipedia. I contribute to it, and will continue to do so.

The culture of it is still remarkably blockheaded sometimes.

Typo of the Day

I was looking at a thread that asked for recommendation for a piece of software.

"Defiantly take at look at {such-and-such}..."

Don't just look at it! Look at it with defiance! Stare it down!

The prefect pomme frite (untested, but hey)

By way of Kottke comes this account of deconstructing the method(s) behind McDonald's french fries. Drama! Intrigue! Geeky writing! Hot oil!

And, as a special added bonus, this recipe to make 'em at home.

In all seriousness, this is a great piece of writing.