On 03/03/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
You're confusing "verified" and "verifiable". All Wikipedia requires is that information actually has been published or is otherwise verifiable. We don't do fact checking, per se.
Well, we do do the fact checking, as far as we can: it would seem negligent not to. However, it might be useful to have "verifiable is quite different from verified" displayed somewhere appropriate. It seems that sometimes the policy can be taken as implying that the 'weight of evidence' lies with the defence — guilty until proven innocent. However, the requirement is not to make claims that are unverifiable, and to be clear how any claims can be verified. The population of a Malawian town, for instance, may not be verifiable on the web, but it is verifiable. We also have to consider that easily accessible sources may be misleading — a website's claims about that Malawian town may be based on the memoirs of a nineteenth century European visitor, whereas a local Chichewa newspaper (unintelligible to most Wikipedians) may have accurate information. In a lot of articles, the English website may not be the best source, simply the most accessible. I would hate to see information removed because it isn't verified yet is verifiable, or because its verifiability is inaccessible to monoglot English-speakers tied to their computer screens.