[WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> 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.
>
> 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).

An example of the kinds of problems you bump into when depending on
primary sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swampyank&diff=prev&oldid=312682486


But there should be no problem under policy for pointing out BOTH what
a respectable primary source says along with disagreeing secondary
sources.  If any policy says otherwise it should be fixed.