On 13 May 2011 19:08, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Fri, 13/5/11, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
From: Delirium delirium@hackish.org Isn't this just a failure to actually think through what verifying information with a reliable source means, rather than a problem with the principle? It's quite possible for the Guardian to be a good newspaper in general, but for a random list in the "Diversions" section, with no apparent investigative reporting involved, to *not* constitute reliable verification of that point.
I actually think it's malice, rather than a failure to think through what verification means. And it's malice in most cases where editors insist that some tabloid claim should stay in a biography, based on "verifiability, not truth." They don't like the subject, and enjoy taking pot shots at them.
Not consistent with actual use
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.da... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.th... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.ne... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.da...