[WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

[Fred Bauder]

Verification (for Wikipedia purposes) involves verification that the  
information was published in a reliable source. It does not require  
verification in the various other senses which might require actual  
proof of the matter.

Thus we can truthfully say that it was reported in the New York Times  
or by BBC (or some other source generally considered reliable) that  
something occurred. We do not need to do original research to confirm  
it.

In the matter of child pornography there is no need to view the  
pictures to fulfill Wikipedia verification. One can imagine some sort  
of classified, obscene or extraordinarily inflammatory document which  
might be illegal, but generally such information cannot be considered  
a reliable published source. Classified documents are by their nature  
not published. Obscene or inflammatory documents are subject to  
suppression and thus not generally circulated.

It all goes back to the nature of an encyclopedia, a summary of  
generally accepted knowledge. That leaves plenty of room for projects  
which move beyond generally accepted knowledge but those are other  
projects.

Fred

On Apr 7, 2006, at 3:07 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:

> Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can
> only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?
>
> The issue has arisen in the context of the article currently known as
> [[2004 Ukranian child pornography raids]]
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukranian_child_pornography_raids>.
>
> The article has changed now, but much of the content (describing the
> pornography-producing organisation, aswell as describing the actual
> material produced) was based on the assertions of those who had viewed
> the content. On a couple of occasions, when sources were asked for in
> relation to particular claims in the article, users provided links to
> the Internet Archive's stored copy of the pornographic website.
>
> Based on the descriptions given in the news sources, it would be
> illegal for me (and for most others) to view this content, and thus it
> would be illegal for me to verify the article. Thus, from my
> perspective, the article is unverifiable.
>
> I think it would be very much a matter of common sense to alter
> [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] to prohibit the use of illegal sources to
> verify articles. But the question is where should the line of
> definition be drawn? Laws vary substantially across jurisdictions.
> Should we prohibit reliance on sources which are illegal to view in
> Florida? Laws are much stricter in other countries: New Zealand
> springs to mind as an example, but there are other countries where I
> am sure the laws are even stricter.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>