[dragonwriter]

Note that Wikipedia has this policy focussed on being a tertiary source; Wikiversity, another Wikimedia project, welcomes original research.

A lot of what people complain about Wikipedia ruling out is in scope for either Wikiversity or Wikibooks; it's not a “we don't want that” issue but a “we have structure, and within that structure there is a better place for that”.

[bawolff]

Yeah, but realistically wikiversity doesn't have much to show for it.

[dragonwriter]

> Yeah, but realistically wikiversity doesn’t have much to show for it.

Because people don’t really want a public wiki to publish original research, they just want to vandalize Wikipedia because of its social impact and use their claims of personal expertise as an excuse to evade Wikipedia’s existing content policies.

[eternityforest]

It's sad that wikibooks and Wikipedia have almost nothing interesting that's complete.

[bawolff]

Wikipedia and wikibooks have plenty of interesting things. Wikiversity less so.

[eternityforest]

Oops, I meant wikibooks and Wikipedia.

Wikibooks has a few things, but almost nothing seems actually complete and hardly anyone seems to work on in, compared to Wikipedia

[jakemauer]

I didn't know about Wikiversity, thanks for sharing.