Aside from the question of whether you are doing original research
(which, by the way, I heartily approve of and support a change in
policy to accept) , a good effort to identify your source is still
necessary. This is a grey area. If I go to the Saguache County
Courthouse and look up documents on say the [[Baca Grant No. 4]] that
would seem to be both a well documented source (book and page) and
publicly available but also difficult and expensive to access and
original research to boot. So pretty ambiguous in terms of our policies.
Fred
On Jun 6, 2005, at 11:30 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
There is also the question of whether it is
reasonably convenient
to access it. For example, a NYT's article might cost 2 bucks but
something that requires accessing Nexus or consulting an obscure
journal is much more expensive.
So material from an "obscure" journal is less acceptable? I guess
my digging into old Soviet naval records for information about
their nuclear submarines is a waste of time.
The harder the original editor worked, the more likely his work
will be deleted. That's ... I'm groping for the word ...
smart? ... no ... oh, I have it: perverse.
--
Sean Barrett | If you insist upon discussing my fiasco, I
sean(a)epoptic.com | shall forthwith go home. --Nadreck of Palain
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l