"David Goodman" wrote
To say all food served should be edible is begging the question. Food by definition is things suitable to be eaten. To say something needs to be verifiable without saying what it means is not much help in practice. Just like "notable" or "encyclopedic"
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:47:33 -0800, "jossi fresco" jossif@gmail.com wrote:
I spy a dangerous fallacy. It may be that you can't _define_ Verifiability without defining "reliable source". But we can certainly _agree_ to Veriability without defining "reliable source". And in fact we have.
(One can agree that food served in a restaurant should be edible, without defining "edible".)
My point entirely, though. We have a "question begging" culture. "Notability" begs the question "noted by whom?". We cope.
The other extreme is a wikilawyering culture. The correct answer to the "you haven't defined your terms" is: cui bono? Does making things more black-and-white in an area help the project, or (as here) help pettifogging editors who are going to raise source criticism to such an art that only access to a huge academic library will allow people to contribute? "Duck tests" for verifiability make a lot of sense, actually.
What we do is to make operational decisions, such as allowing AfD to cut through notability imponderables. This is for the best.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam