A shot from the hip. Someone who is not one of the gurus thinks he has some "great insight", and puts it on Wiki, expecting the gurus to probably tell him why and how he is wrong and to learn something in the process.

Any page in this category should be regarded with suspicion until a KnownGuru has commented / repaired / deleted it. If the KnownGuru thinks the page is of any worth, he might even remove the CategorySpeculativeStatement (and say that he did so somewhere on the page).

This doesn't seem to be a category so much as a poorly named WikiBadge. -- PhilGoodwin

----

One could always begin one's speculation with the more customary, "It seems to me ..." The approach suggested by this page has the advantage that the speculation hasn't been personalized and therefore protected from revision.

----

What, oh what would happen if someone wrote:

	 :	I think I am a guru.

	 :	[CategorySpeculativeStatement]

Would he then be capable of asserting the veracity of his own statement? Oh, recursion is fun.

--------
KnownGuru? Sounds like ArgumentFromAuthority. While it's good to get ideas from "respected" people in the field, they don't automatically get a GetOutOfScienceCard. Related: DefaultStanceIsUnknown on "best practices".

True gurus understand the sources and limits of their knowledge and don't pretend to have slam-dunk (certain) truth. They don't have to rely on "just trust me, I know more". Fake gurus do that. Real gurus talk about a never-ending journey of knowledge, fake gurus talk about destinations.
------
Most of SoftwareEngineering is "speculative". You may get more mileage out of CategoryNonSpeculative because probably 90%+ of this wiki is "speculative". Good science is lacking in the field.
----
CategoryCategory?