Look: only people with access to nuclear reactors and extreme training can verify what's in any number of Wikipedia entries on nuclear physics.
It COULD all be a DANGEROUS HOAX foisted upon us by scientists.
I mean, what proof do I have that the half-life of Polonium-210 is actually 138.376 days? Maybe it's really 139.24 days. Maybe Polonium-210 doesn't EVEN EXIST.
Only a few select people with access to Polonium-210 can verify that information.
But EVERY SINGLE ONE of those people can.
Similarly, maybe only a few people have access to Star-Gate episode #23. But if they say that in that episode Cmdr. Pickett gets eaten by a Florgbernian Rumpox, then I'm willing to ASSUME GOOD FAITH.
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But Cunc dealt with this. 'Verifiable' is an in-principle thing. It is
distinct from saying everyone can do homebrew fact-checking on anything mentioned. Verifiability on Wikipedia can't simply be a sceptics' charter: that really would be a problem.
Verifiable means we can actually verify it to be true. Not in principle, but in practise. The whole point of verifiable sources is that we can be sure we don't have things stated on Wikipedia that aren't true - some vague kind of hypothetical verifiability doesn't help that. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l