[WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research

[Ken Arromdee]

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.

2) It's always possible to come up with some farfetched scenario where the
direct observation is wrong, "proving" that you need analysis,
interpretation, or deduction every single time.  "Maybe the bridge was
opened one day for a special festival and it's usually closed to traffic."
"Maybe the document states a false date for some legal reason that you, not
being an expert, wouldn't know about".  Heck, this happened right now;
someone basically suggested "maybe the family members recall the date
incorrectly" (even though it wasn't just family members).