On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Ken Arromdee <[email protected]> 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. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
