On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Ken Arromdee <arrom...@rahul.net> wrote:
> Unfortunately, "roughly" isn't "precisely". > > This argument started with a verifiable-but-false claim which was factually > checked, but where we're not allowed to use the result of the fact-checking > (since it was a primary source and secondary sources take preference). > The covered bridge example was also one ("I fact-checked the source by > looking > at the bridge. The source was wrong." is not acceptable.) You're mistaken about sourcing, I think. I'll try for a simple lay-description of a complex subject needing judgment: Information comes in a variety of forms. Some information anyone can verify for themselves (in principle). It's factual, it's presented to the senses, it requires no interpretation or analysis, it is what it is. A photocopy of my passport is a piece of paper that appears to be a photocopy of a passport and contains a picture, and anyone can agree on that. The Declaration of Independence in the National Archives contains the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident". The Golden Gate bridge crosses water. My birth certificate states a given date. Dickens' book "Bleak House" focuses on a legal dispute and its consequences and is narrated in part by character Esther Summerson. There are 13 stripes and 50 stars on the American flag. These are primary sources (in Wikipedia terms), they are what they are, and any reasonable person with access can verify and agree. Other sources are opinions, analysis, research and conclusions. We don't get into this area, we defer to what we conclude or believe to be experts and credible sources, and document the main opinions/views/beliefs that exist in the world. 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. So yes, you can look at the bridge. Anyone can. That would in principle suffice for something that anyone could check and anyone agree upon -- obvious, clear, blatant, unambiguous, verifiable. Because reliable sources are expected to be correct, if it's contradicted by sources, then other editors will require some kind of evidence that the bridge does truly have those obvious attributes, that any visitor could clearly see, not just "some Wikipedian says so". FT2 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l