[WikiEN-l] Verifiability - Case Study I

[Steve Bennett]

On 3/3/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > If I couldn't find one,
> > I'd request one on talk. For a harmless edit like this, I'd probably
> > wait for a couple of weeks,  then go back and delete it.
...
> > But WP:V can't give endless examples like this. We have to assume,
> > even if flying in the face of all the evidence, that most editors have
> > a degree of common sense.
>
> Indeed.  But then that is the drawback of the policy documents,
> collectively.

Trouble is, my common sense, combined with policy, leads to a
different result. We've assumed the factoid is true. We've assumed it
is verifiable. As the policy stands, I would argue for leaving it in
the article, regardless of whether we can actually track down a source
or not. The policy doesn't say all info must have sources - it simply
says all info must be verifiable, and there is enough information
there to determine whether it's true or not (unlike the case of
unattributed quotations, for example).

Common sense does not support removing true, verifiable, harmless information.

Steve