On 5/26/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/26/06, Andrew Gray
<shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
However, the existence of that blog is a valid source that "X has a
blog called Y".
Well, what I'm saying is that no, it isn't, or at least that it shouldn't
be.
I guess you must be using some jargonish meaning of "verifiable" that is
not in keeping with the standard English meaning of the word?
Yeah, pretty much. I'm talking about the definition as it applies to Wikipedia.
As your other post notes, this makes
"notability" an issue, but it
always has been.
Actually, notability is a fairly recent issue with regard to the
history of Wikipedia. Verifiability isn't.
And I think a bit of subjective good judgment is
better than redefining words to mean strange things.
Fair enough. I should have been more clear that I was talking
specifically about Wikipedia's verifiability policy.
Of course, the initial question I asked was in response to a statement
made by Jimbo, and I had assumed he *was* talking specifically about
Wikipedia's verifiability policy. In fact, I'm still not sure whether
or not he was.
Anthony