On 12/18/06, Rich Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Sarah wrote:
The problem is that material we use as sources
must be available to
the general public,...
Which I understand to include such things as legal databases. In theory
at least, anyone in the general public can do what is necessary to
acquire access to such a database. We certainly don't require that
sources are immediately available to anyone.
Any member of the public must be able to access the source and also
see what the source says. So Zero's search would have to be very
straightforward, one that no one could argue with or interpret
differently, and it would have to be a search of a database that a
member of the public could reasonably be expected to gain access to.
And arguably his conclusion, that no legal scholar holds a different
opinion (or whatever words he used), would have to be notable and
relevant in a way that didn't invoke OR, otherwise it would be like
saying no mathematician believes 2 plus 2 equals 5.
The NOR policy is clear that "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who
reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia
passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary
source material requires a secondary source."
Sarah