[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

Fri Dec 22 08:07:17 UTC 2006

jayjg wrote:

>On 12/21/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>You can't prove a negative, but you can certainly say "his book is
>>not in the Cornell University Library" or whatever, and cite a link
>>to the search or a description of how to do the search. This doesn't
>>seem very different to me from a citation.
>>    
>>
>No, you absolutely cannot do that, for reasons eloquently stated
>elsewhere. The claim that it is not in the Cornell University Library
>is a novel conclusion based on your own original research; this seems
>so trivially obvious to me that it astonishes me that others would
>claim otherwise. You might as well promote a novel claim in physics,
>and point people to the calculations you have made to prove your
>theory. If a reliable source says "the book is not found in the
>Cornell University Library", then quote them. Otherwise, move on.
>
What you appear to be opposing here is any research rather than just 
original research.  Your use of the term "trivially obvious" and your 
astonishment are pure rhetoric.  The reference to a "novel claim in 
physics" attempts to generalize from a very specific set of 
circumstances.  The claim that the references were not found at Cornell 
may be novel in performance for the specific circumstances, but it is 
not novel in the nature of its general application.  This argument has 
been used frequently in many circumstances.  Equating "novel" to 
"original" in the present context is thoroughly misleading.

We cannot be so naïve as to believe that absolutely every claim in 
Wikipedia can be indisputably sourced.from unimpeachable references.  
Doing so can only propel our readers into a fools' paradise of certainty 
about the world.

Ec