|Wikipedia's water article does not claim that water is wet. It mentions the words have similar etymology, and it mentions wetlands, but nowhere in the article does it state that water is wet.|
Unlike That Other Wiki, on Encyclopædia Dramatica you are allowed to make outlandish claims like "water is wet", "the sky is blue" or "jews did wtc" without citing scientific studies proving it. Also unlike TOW, we would encourage you to cite actual scientific studies (if we cared, which we don't) because TOW usually just ends up citing The New York Post instead of actual verifiable studies or resources. Using original research for your article = not allowed. Citing a website that utilized original research = GO FUCKING WILD. The logic here is staggering. The practical meaning of TOW's policies is that articles have to be built mainly of links to other articles and citations instead of ideas. At ED, you can make an article with real sentences that you made up yourself, or you can borrow sentences from scientists. Your choice.
Original research is the best, and often the only way to ensure the most efficient corruption of LOL when dealing with drama on the internets. Some individuals require extensive amounts of blood, sweat and semen to fully document the extent of their e-infamy. TOW's lack of original research is a fatal flaw in its genetic makeup that ensures that it will forever be mired in too much Serious Fucking Business, i.e, they will never come to understand the simple joy of the lulz.
Doing the Math
Through the Magic of Original Research, We Know That...
- The internet is not a big truck
- Niggers have dark skin
- JEWS DID WTC
- MONGO got wikipwned
- ASCII pr0n is indeed quite fappable
- I'm a dragon, so fuck you
- You huff jenkem
- And your mom is being ass-reamed by Jimbo
- Mediacrat is rich and beautiful
Original research is part of a series on
Visit the Wikipedia Portal for complete coverage.