I think that this takes the original research ban a little too far. We
are talking here about a place and a directly observable fact about the
place. The original research here was done by the people who put the
information own the wall. Any Wikipedian who cares to (I'm sure we have
plenty of Wikipedians in or near Philadelphia.) can go there and take a
photo of the wall for verification. It fits in fine with a policy of
having people go out and take their own photos of whatever to replace
fair use photos. IOW when should original research be used as grounds
for rejecting a photo?
Ec
James Hare wrote:
In order for information not to be original research,
it has to be
published. That's why visiting the college and finding out for yourself
unfortunately constitutes original research.
On 12/9/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006(a)dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>>From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
>>
>>On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006(a)dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If someone (e.g. 68.80.254.34) says:
>>>
>>>"Third floor of College Hall at Penn has an Episcopalian Chapel. On
>>>the wall states that Penn was founded by the Anglican Church of
>>>England. Go there and read it," would you say that "I can't
imagine
>>>why I wouldn't believe it?"
>>>
>>>Anyone _could_ travel to Philadelphia and visit College Hall. Does
>>>that make the fact verifiable?
>>>
>>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>It seems to me, then, that
>
>--you believe that information based solely on the personal testimony
>of an individual Wikipedian is acceptable content.
>