Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/26/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I've always taken "verifiability" to mean verifiable *in a reputable source*. Some people disagree, of course (apparently you're one of them), but I wasn't aware that Jimmy Wales was one of them.
However, the existence of that blog is a valid source that "X has a blog called Y".
Well, what I'm saying is that no, it isn't, or at least that it shouldn't be.
I guess you must be using some jargonish meaning of "verifiable" that is not in keeping with the standard English meaning of the word? I find it difficult to claim that the existence of a website at www.foo.com stating "foo.com is run by bar" is not a reputable and verifiable source for the statement "the website www.foo.com claims to be run by bar". The source is indeed verifiable (even into the future, thanks to archive.org), and leaves little room to doubt that the statement it's supporting is true.
I think the issue is one of notability---the statement "the website www.foo.com claims to be run by bar" is only worth including if foo.com is a famous website.
As your other post notes, this makes "notability" an issue, but it always has been. When we choose to publish facts on private people versus public people, for example, is a judgment call about how "notable" they are---not anything to do with verifiability, as many private/non-notable people have information about them verifiable from e.g. phone books. And I think a bit of subjective good judgment is better than redefining words to mean strange things.
-Mark