On 3/2/06, Gareth Hughes ([[User:Garzo]]) garzohugo+wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There is quite a difference between unverifiable and something that is just difficult to verify. There are also overlaps with 'no original research' here. In the end, common sense needs to be factored in. What is common knowledge in one part of the world may not be in another. Verifiability should not be turned into a bureaucratic exercise, where information is removed because it hasn't filled its form in correctly. Of course, editors should be challenged to give supporting evidence for something, but it should not be rejected just because it cannot be supported by internet sources or an American/Australian/British library. Such a line would only increase the systemic bias towards English-speaking computer users in developed countries. The world is growing ever smaller, but it's not yet that small.
Gareth Hughes.
As far as I can tell, that is the line. A person can't just go and interview a village elder - that would be OR. Personally, I could see a case being made for interviewing someone, adding the transcript to Wikisource or something of the sort, and referencing that as what "Person X has said". As it stand though, I think it would fall afoul of NOR.
Ian