QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 7th April 2008, 6:30pm)
A statement like that betrays a serious confusion about the difference between original research and sourced research. Sourced research demands that one read and interpret primary sources. It doesn't become original research just because you touch original sources. I realize that Some People have been campaigning very hard to confuse Other People about that distinction, and working very hard to maintain that confusion, but that is just part and parcel of their overall programme of mystification, and Some Of Us are not fooled about the reasons why they want to do that.
To be fair, this isn't entirely a planned Wikipedia obfuscation. The fact is that there's some difference in what "research" is, among the various fields. Historical "research," for example, is only rarely of the Samuel Eliot Morison Two Ocean War
type, wherein the naval historian goes out and observes the battle himself, in real time, knowing he's watching history as it is made.
Most of it, in fact, is done by the historian examining various "primary" documents like letters, diaries, newpapers, government records, etc., long after the event. Usually entirely that way. In much the way Morison did for Columbus, rather than the way he did it for what he saw himself of the naval side of WW II. For some history on subjects so far in the past that no letters, diaries, or newspapers exist, the historian has to rely on reinterpretation of secondary sources, like somebody "researching" Roman history by reading an abbrigement of a book by Livy which itself no longer exists, and which itself is based on texts Livy says he had but we no longer have, and which in any case described stuff that Livy himself never saw... You get the idea. You can do original history research with four or five levels of this kind of thing, and get it published as "primary" historical research.
In math and the natural sciences, original work is something entirely different, and consists of doing experiments or manipulating equations in ways that are entirely novel, and publishing your results.
In Wikipedia, the extra level(s) of textural sourcing that lie between event and writer in some fields, but not others, has caused no end of confusion about what a primary or secondary source even is. And then there's the problem that you can't DO writing without synthesis of a sort, even review writing, and Wikipedia refuses to recognize this
Arggh. A pox on them all.