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. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
