On 12/19/06, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Sarah,
It seems to me that there are two related but separate issues that are getting intertwined here. I'm not sure if I'm just reading you wrong, or something else.
At times it seems that you are suggesting that reference material that is not "generally available" is off limits for Wikipedia references. While we might be able to discuss what level of unavailability makes a reference unsatisfactory, but those responding here seem to think that, for instance, a legal database, or a subscription-only database are acceptable.
Richard, I agree they're separate issues.
I don't mean that we should only use sources that are *easily* available, because that would be very limiting, but they must be reasonably available in the English-speaking world. I can't be precise about what I mean by "reasonable," but broadly speaking the man in the street should not have to move mountains, or pay a great deal of money, to obtain the material if he's determined to find it, and the source must be a published, citable one, not something circulated within a limited group of people.
The other issue is that of Original Research, and where "collation and organization" becomes OR.
The issues of availability of sources and OR merge when a Wikipedian explores a database that isn't widely available, as Zero was suggesting, adds his own interpretation of his research on that database to an article, and then calls the database his "source," even though there isn't a single document in that database that actually supports what he's saying. In other words, he has no citable, published source. That's a violation of NOR and V; it's a misuse of the primary source (the database); and it's arguably not reasonable to expect the man in the street to find a way to duplicate the research.
But otherwise, yes, I agree it's best to keep the two issues -- OR and availability of source material -- separate.
Sarah