[WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 41, Issue 185

[zero 0000]

> From: jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com>
> 
> On 12/21/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> > > From: "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com>
> > >
> > > On 12/21/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> A while back I wrote about a self-publicising vanity author.
> One of
> > >>> the details I'd liked to have note was the complete (or near-
> > >>> complete)
> > >>> absence of his books in public library catalogues, but it's
> almost
> > >>> impossible to actually find a way to cite a "negative search"
> much
> > >>> less a positive result...
> > >>
> > >> Indeed, that would end up being OR - quite simple OR, but OR all
> the
> > >> same. It's annoying when you know something that apparently
> no-one
> > >> has
> > >> published, but there isn't much we can do about it. (Unless you
> > >> happen
> > >> to be an expert on the subject and can publish it yourself)
> > >
> > > If that is OR then WP:NOR is a broken rule.
> >
> > A citation is essentially a very simple piece of research that can
> > easily be reproduced by anyone without specialist knowledge.
> >
> > I don't see what that can't be broadened just a bit. For example,
> > let's suppose a library has an online catalog... let's say an
> online
> > catalog that's accessible to anyone. (Two that come to mind are the
> > Cornell University Library, and the 16,000-volume public library of
> > Bergen-op-Zoom in the Netherlands... well actually it seems to be
> > offline but it was available a few years ago).
> >
> > You can't prove a negative, but you can certainly say "his book is
> > not in the Cornell University Library" or whatever, and cite a link
> > to the search or a description of how to do the search. This
> doesn't
> > seem very different to me from a citation.
> 
> No, you absolutely cannot do that, for reasons eloquently stated
> elsewhere. The claim that it is not in the Cornell University Library
> is a novel conclusion based on your own original research; this seems
> so trivially obvious to me that it astonishes me that others would
> claim otherwise. You might as well promote a novel claim in physics,
> and point people to the calculations you have made to prove your
> theory. If a reliable source says "the book is not found in the
> Cornell University Library", then quote them. Otherwise, move on.
> 
> Jay.

Jay, I don't agree with everything Daniel and Steve have written
about this, but I also find your reply quite problematic.  Surely
the library catalogue is the most reliable and verifiable source
for what is in the library.

Concerning negative information, consider "John Smith's latest
murder novel Killers of Wiki did not reveal the identity of the
murderer."  Can't I cite the novel for that?  Anyone can get
the book and verify the information, so it is reliable and
verifiable. I don't think it is necessary to wait until some
third party makes this observation about the book.  (Obviously
it would be a different matter if the claim needed some actual
thinking or analysis beyond mere looking.)  It seems to me that
citing a library catalogue as a source for saying that a book
is not there is fine.  I can't think of why one would want to do
that in a Wikipedia article but I don't think it is illegal.

Zero.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com