[WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

[James Hare]

In order for information not to be original research, it has to be
published. That's why visiting the college and finding out for yourself
unfortunately constitutes original research.

On 12/9/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>
> > From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> >
> > On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> >>> From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>
> >>> If someone says that in Episode X of Show Y this happened, I can't
> >>> imagine
> >>> why I wouldn't believe it.
> >>>
> >>> And I can imagine any number of ways by which if I *had* to I could
> >>> verify
> >>> such claim, including going to the production company or the
> >>> Museum of
> >>> Television and Radio or asking on craigslist to view such episode.
> >>
> >> If someone (e.g. 68.80.254.34) says:
> >>
> >> "Third floor of College Hall at Penn has an Episcopalian Chapel. On
> >> the wall states that Penn was founded by the Anglican Church of
> >> England. Go there and read it," would you say that "I can't imagine
> >> why I wouldn't believe it?"
> >>
> >> Anyone _could_ travel to Philadelphia and visit College Hall. Does
> >> that make the fact verifiable?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> It seems to me, then, that
>
> --you have a different definition of "verifiable" than Wikipedia
> currently has;
>
> --you do not accept the current verifiability policy;
>
> --you believe that information based solely on the personal testimony
> of an individual Wikipedian is acceptable content.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>