On 5/26/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/05/06, Anthony DiPierro
<wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
wrote:
Precisely
my point. It is an editorial judgment. We can't say "just
because it is true and verifiable we should post it in wikipedia".
So you believe that ranting criticisms on blogs constitute
"verifiable" information?
Ranting criticisms on blogs certainly constitute verification for
writing "It has been claimed he eats babies". They do not constitute
verification for "He eats babies".
Not according to [[wp:V]] they don't. "Anyone can create a website or
pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a
certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal
websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
I've always taken "verifiability" to mean verifiable *in a reputable
source*. Some people disagree, of course (apparently you're one of
them), but I wasn't aware that Jimmy Wales was one of them.
Anthony