[WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research

[Surreptitiousness]

Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, FT2 wrote:
>   
>> So the resolution of your question above is, if anyone could in principle
>> check it without analysis, just by witnessing the object or document and
>> attesting it says what it says (or is what it is, or has certain obvious
>> qualities), then that's verifiable. If it would need analysis,
>> interpretation or deduction to form the view, so that some views might be
>> credible/expert and some might not, then we don't try to "play the expert"
>> here, we look at what credible sources/experts say instead.
>>     
>
> 1) That doesn't seem to be actual Wikipedia policy.
>   

Sure it is.  Have a look at the section on dealing with primary 
sources.  That's almost a perfect summary of it.