[WikiEN-l] Widespread disagreement with Wikipedia:Verifiability

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/30/2008 8:45:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
cbeckhorn at fastmail.fm writes:

Of  course it isn't a source that can be cited in the article. On the 
ther  hand, if an editor I trust says they called and got the scoop, 
I would  take that into account on a talk page. >>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
If a permanent-media source, like a news video states that the bridge is  
closed, but a Wikipedian calls the transit company to confirm that it's open,  
then the article citing the video would still say it's closed, and we as  
Wikipedians should be asking the transit company to post an article to their own  
website to say "Well now it's open" or whatever.
 
Telephone calls, emails, faxes and the like are not items which are  
themselves, in their "own person" verifiable.  Although you may verify them  by 
repeating essentially the same procedure, it is not actually the same finite  and 
fixed source.
 
My personal viewing of an artwork, should never be put on-par with a  
published account of same.  My own personal knowledge, however collected of  a 
situation, should never be put on-par with published accounts.
 
Will Johnson



**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL 
Home.      
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom00030000000001)