[WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?

[Andrew Gray]

On 02/04/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:

> However, is this original research? Or does it follow on naturally
> once the Law of Arms is understood? It appears to be a legal opinion,
> and I would imagine that any legal opinions should come from a citable
> source.
>
> My main concern is that, even if it is true, it would need to be
> proved that approval was not in fact obtained, and that could be
> difficult to do. My instinct is to remove the statement from the
> article again pending this.

Glancing at the talkpage - if it was an authorised design it would be
published in X; it's not published in X; ergo unauthorised. The
problem is that a) understanding that the links in that chain are
meaningful requires a degree of external knowledge of how the system
works; and b) the usual issues with proving "was not in any version of
X" if someone decides to quibble.

(I do hate it when institutions do this. Damnit, they have a nice
serviceable crest already... why create a new one and confuse
everybody?)

It'd be much easier for someone to write a letter to the Old
Latymerians (or whatever) newsletter complaining about it, and cite
that ;-)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk