Well, here goes the expert rebellion again. Consistently I've found
editors rejecting any personal expertise in favor of anything that
looks much like a traditional source.
As far as the bridge thing is concerned, my personal bias is against
including that sort of information, one way of the other. Reality is
too much of a moving target for that sort of detail to maintain
currency.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Carl Beckhorn <cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm> wrote:
But the verifiability policy is not a suicide pact.
It doesn't mean that
editors should ignore what they actually do know about a subject. WP:V
was never intended to prevent people from using their personal knowledge
and training in the editorial process and on talk pages. WP:NOR was
meant to keep novel, crackpot theories out of articles, not to force
people to cite standard facts that every undergraduate textbook on the
subject conveys.