jayjg wrote:
On 12/22/06, Daniel P. B. Smith
<wikipedia2006(a)dpbsmith.com> wrote:
From: Ray
Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
I don't see what that can't be broadened
just a bit. For example,
let's suppose a library has an online catalog... let's say an online
catalog that's accessible to anyone. (Two that come to mind are the
Cornell University Library, and the 16,000-volume public library of
Bergen-op-Zoom in the Netherlands... well actually it seems to be
offline but it was available a few years ago).
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.
More precisely you can say that you could not find the book listed in
the Cornell University Library Catalog. It's not the same even though
the correlation between the two statements will be strong.
Yes, I stand corrected. Quite right. Or even "the book was not found
in an online search of the Cornell University Library Catalog." If
the citation gives the details of the search, that gives the
opportunity for someone else to check and point out that the search
succeeds if you spell the title differently. Not at all impossible.
No, the accurate statement is "This specific online search by Daniel
P.B. Smith on this specific date did not return any results". And, of
course, there's no guarantee that 1 minute after Daniel P.B. Smith
does his search, the book will not be acquired, or entered into the
catalog, or re-indexed properly because it had been improperly entered
before, or...
Such tortuous prose is unnecesarry. The library search results are
still secondary information with only indirect bearing on the subject of
the article. If the work is added to the catalog one minute later, and
someone's verification efforts reveals this we will all be happy. This
still doesn't help us if two minutes later the book is ripped off. The
information is verifiable to the extent that someone else can run the
search independently.
Once one is forced to make an *accurate* (non original
research)
statement, it starts looking ridiculous, and rightly so.
No original research is about being verifiable, not about being accurate.