jayjg wrote:
On 12/21/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
You can't prove a negative, but you can certainly say "his book is not in the Cornell University Library" or whatever, and cite a link to the search or a description of how to do the search. This doesn't seem very different to me from a citation.
No, you absolutely cannot do that, for reasons eloquently stated elsewhere. The claim that it is not in the Cornell University Library is a novel conclusion based on your own original research; this seems so trivially obvious to me that it astonishes me that others would claim otherwise. You might as well promote a novel claim in physics, and point people to the calculations you have made to prove your theory. If a reliable source says "the book is not found in the Cornell University Library", then quote them. Otherwise, move on.
What you appear to be opposing here is any research rather than just original research. Your use of the term "trivially obvious" and your astonishment are pure rhetoric. The reference to a "novel claim in physics" attempts to generalize from a very specific set of circumstances. The claim that the references were not found at Cornell may be novel in performance for the specific circumstances, but it is not novel in the nature of its general application. This argument has been used frequently in many circumstances. Equating "novel" to "original" in the present context is thoroughly misleading.
We cannot be so naïve as to believe that absolutely every claim in Wikipedia can be indisputably sourced.from unimpeachable references. Doing so can only propel our readers into a fools' paradise of certainty about the world.
Ec