[WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

[Ray Saintonge]

I think that this takes the original research ban a little too far.  We 
are talking here about a place and a directly observable fact about the 
place.  The original research here was done by the people who put the 
information own the wall.  Any Wikipedian who cares to (I'm sure we have 
plenty of Wikipedians in or near Philadelphia.) can go there and take a 
photo of the wall for verification.  It fits in fine with a policy of 
having people go out and take their own photos of whatever to replace 
fair use photos.  IOW when should original research be used as grounds 
for rejecting a photo?

Ec

James Hare wrote:

>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:
>>>      
>>>
>>>> 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 believe that information based solely on the personal testimony
>>of an individual Wikipedian is acceptable content.
>>