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@dpbsmith.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com
On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@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.