On 12/20/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 3. Sarah points out the following text from WP:NOR :
> "anyone--without specialist knowledge--who reads the
> primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia
> passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation
> of primary source material requires a secondary source."
> That seems to be broken. Examples of specialist knowledge
> which might be required are the ability to read a foreign
> language and the ability to understand mathematical notation.
>
> Someone who can read music should be able to report from
> a musical score that it is in E-flat, even though that requires
> specialist knowledge. What the policy *should* require
> (somehow) is that anyone who can read music will agree that
> the score is in E-flat. The fundamental skills of the field
> should be assumed, and the policy should reflect that, imo.
In all seriousness, I think the policy should be that any special knowledge
needed to understand the article should be included somewhere in Wikipedia.
For example, the above knowledge is included at [[key signature]] and at
[[E-flat major]].
Thus if the example article read
"The [[key (music)|key]] of the score is [[E-flat major]]<ref>[link to
score]</ref>..."
Any person with the knowledge contained at those links would be able to
understand the reference.