There is quite a difference between unverifiable and something that is
just difficult to verify. There are also overlaps with 'no original
research' here. In the end, common sense needs to be factored in. What
is common knowledge in one part of the world may not be in another.
Verifiability should not be turned into a bureaucratic exercise, where
information is removed because it hasn't filled its form in correctly.
Of course, editors should be challenged to give supporting evidence
for something, but it should not be rejected just because it cannot be
supported by internet sources or an American/Australian/British
library. Such a line would only increase the systemic bias towards
English-speaking computer users in developed countries. The world is
growing ever smaller, but it's not yet that small.
Gareth Hughes.
On 02/03/06, Jon <thagudearbh(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Indeed, but something that is inherently unverifiable,
as an otherwise unpublished report is, is never a reasonable source.
Jon
Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
Too grim. What is a reasonable source varies with the subject.
Fred
On Mar 2, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Jon wrote:
To be blunt, which bit of saying that every bit
of info must be
supported by a verifiable and reputable source is unclear?
In this instance, the information is clearly unverifiable, so it
shouldn't be added.
Jon
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security
Centre.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l