Sean Barrett wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson stated for the record:
Honestly, the verifiability argument doesn't fly at all with me. If you pick information out of an archive, it's most certainly verifiable, someone else can check it out as well. I realise that that is a hassle, but that doesn't change the fact that it is verfiable.
I have a specific example: the Wikipedia article on a notable historical figure, like all other sources I have checked, states that he had two wives (in series, not parallel). However, an official government-issued marriage certificate on file in a county clerk's office proves that he had another wife between those two. What will I be permitted to add to this person's article?
It would make no sense not to include the mid-wife. If you saw the marriage certificate, and it is available for anyone who goes to that clerk's office to see it is verifiable. Is it ethical to maintain something which you know to be false just to be in complance with technical regulations?
Ec