Aside from the question of whether you are doing original research (which, by the way, I heartily approve of and support a change in policy to accept) , a good effort to identify your source is still necessary. This is a grey area. If I go to the Saguache County Courthouse and look up documents on say the [[Baca Grant No. 4]] that would seem to be both a well documented source (book and page) and publicly available but also difficult and expensive to access and original research to boot. So pretty ambiguous in terms of our policies.
Fred
On Jun 6, 2005, at 11:30 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
There is also the question of whether it is reasonably convenient to access it. For example, a NYT's article might cost 2 bucks but something that requires accessing Nexus or consulting an obscure journal is much more expensive.
So material from an "obscure" journal is less acceptable? I guess my digging into old Soviet naval records for information about their nuclear submarines is a waste of time.
The harder the original editor worked, the more likely his work will be deleted. That's ... I'm groping for the word ... smart? ... no ... oh, I have it: perverse.
-- Sean Barrett | If you insist upon discussing my fiasco, I sean@epoptic.com | shall forthwith go home. --Nadreck of Palain _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l