[WikiEN-l] Using Wikipedia to out pseudonymous Erwin James, Guardian writ...

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/23/2009 7:33:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,  
oldakquill at gmail.com writes:

What if  there had been more than one person imprisoned that
year who had been a  member of the French Foreign Legion? This is not
inconceivable, since many  people are imprisoned every year, and it is
possible that they may have  been members of the Legion. If so, what if
the person identified was the  wrong person? If the wrong person had
been identified, what you claim to be  valid research would have
produced incorrect  claims.>>



-------------------------
That's right.
That doesn't make the research original in the sense with which we use it  
in Wikipedia however.  We have many cases where two different sources  
conflict, or where sources are entirely silent or confused on some matter and we  
can still cite what they say.
 
Using some data to find more data in some source isn't original  research.  
That is source-based research.  If you are creating the  data, as opposed 
to reading it, that would be original research.
 
In the example we just had, I found four boys who could be the  target.  I 
could certainly in that article say, "he himself states that he  was born in 
Lancashire, and there are four boys born in Lancashire with his name  and 
approximate age".  That's not original research, it's an observation  based 
on some source which anyone else can validate and with which they can  agree. 
 If I were to choose one, based on asking his granddaughter, that  would be 
original research because I am creating a new source not currently  
existing.  A person is not a source, but her statements to me, writen down,  is the 
creation of a source.
 
That's my opinion of the matter.
 
Will
 
 
 
**************Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219799634x1201361008/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubl
eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133440%3B36002254%3Bj)