[WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

[Sydney Poore]

That was my argument for LS Studio article.

Sydney aka FloNight

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Keith Old wrote:
>   
>> On 4/7/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can
>>> only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?
>>>
>>> The issue has arisen in the context of the article currently known as
>>> [[2004 Ukranian child pornography raids]]
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukranian_child_pornography_raids>.
>>>
>>> The article has changed now, but much of the content (describing the
>>> pornography-producing organisation, aswell as describing the actual
>>> material produced) was based on the assertions of those who had viewed
>>> the content. On a couple of occasions, when sources were asked for in
>>> relation to particular claims in the article, users provided links to
>>> the Internet Archive's stored copy of the pornographic website.
>>>
>>> Based on the descriptions given in the news sources, it would be
>>> illegal for me (and for most others) to view this content, and thus it
>>> would be illegal for me to verify the article. Thus, from my
>>> perspective, the article is unverifiable.
>>>
>>> I think it would be very much a matter of common sense to alter
>>> [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] to prohibit the use of illegal sources to
>>> verify articles. But the question is where should the line of
>>> definition be drawn? Laws vary substantially across jurisdictions.
>>> Should we prohibit reliance on sources which are illegal to view in
>>> Florida? Laws are much stricter in other countries: New Zealand
>>> springs to mind as an example, but there are other countries where I
>>> am sure the laws are even stricter.
>>>
>>>       
>> I think that content that cannot be verified other than by accessing illegal
>> materials is unverifiable. As well, our policy on sourcing requires reliable
>> third-party sources. Thus a Reuters report for example on the raids would be
>> deemed to be a reliable source. A cached copy of the material is not a
>> reliable third party source quite apart from its illegality.
>>
>>     
>
> Wouldn't it also count as Original Research?
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>   

-- 
Sydney Poore

Go Bengals!