[WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research

[FT2]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Surreptitiousness <
surreptitious.wikipedian at googlemail.com> wrote:

> 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.



To add to this, note that "primary sources" are stated to include
"...archeological artifacts; photographs.."

NOR, a core policy in this area, doesn't say that the "writings about an
artifact" are the source. It says clearly that artifacts themselves are
categorized as primary sources.

The only way an "artifact" or photograph could ever be a "source" is that by
its very existence, it has a number of obvious descriptive qualities and the
like that any reasonable person witnessing it would agree upon, and that
anyone with access to the artifact could verify.

FT2