[WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research

[FT2]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:

> Unfortunately, "roughly" isn't "precisely".
>
> This argument started with a verifiable-but-false claim which was factually
> checked, but where we're not allowed to use the result of the fact-checking
> (since it was a primary source and secondary sources take preference).
> The covered bridge example was also one ("I fact-checked the source by
> looking
>  at the bridge.  The source was wrong." is not acceptable.)


You're mistaken about sourcing, I think. I'll try for a simple
lay-description of a complex subject needing judgment:

Information comes in a variety of forms. Some information anyone can verify
for themselves (in principle). It's factual, it's presented to the senses,
it requires no interpretation or analysis, it is what it is.

A photocopy of my passport is a piece of paper that appears to be a
photocopy of a passport and contains a picture, and anyone can agree on
that. The Declaration of Independence in the National Archives contains the
words "We hold these truths to be self-evident". The Golden Gate bridge
crosses water. My birth certificate states a given date. Dickens' book
"Bleak House" focuses on a legal dispute and its consequences and is
narrated in part by character Esther Summerson. There are 13 stripes and 50
stars on the American flag.

These are primary sources (in Wikipedia terms), they are what they are, and
any reasonable person with access can verify and agree.

Other sources are opinions, analysis, research and conclusions. We don't get
into this area, we defer to what we conclude or believe to be experts and
credible sources, and document the main opinions/views/beliefs that exist in
the world.

So the resolution of your question above is, if anyone could in principle
check it without analysis, just by witnessing the object or document and
attesting it says what it says (or is what it is, or has certain obvious
qualities), then that's verifiable. If it would need analysis,
interpretation or deduction to form the view, so that some views might be
credible/expert and some might not, then we don't try to "play the expert"
here, we look at what credible sources/experts say instead.

So yes, you can look at the bridge. Anyone can. That would in principle
suffice for something that anyone could check and anyone agree upon --
obvious, clear, blatant, unambiguous, verifiable. Because reliable sources
are expected to be correct, if it's contradicted by sources, then other
editors will require some kind of evidence that the bridge does truly have
those obvious attributes, that any visitor could clearly see, not just "some
Wikipedian says so".

FT2