On 12/9/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com
On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com
If someone says that in Episode X of Show Y this happened, I can't imagine why I wouldn't believe it.
And I can imagine any number of ways by which if I *had* to I could verify such claim, including going to the production company or the Museum of Television and Radio or asking on craigslist to view such episode.
If someone (e.g. 68.80.254.34) says:
"Third floor of College Hall at Penn has an Episcopalian Chapel. On the wall states that Penn was founded by the Anglican Church of England. Go there and read it," would you say that "I can't imagine why I wouldn't believe it?"
Anyone _could_ travel to Philadelphia and visit College Hall. Does that make the fact verifiable?
Yes.
It seems to me, then, that
--you have a different definition of "verifiable" than Wikipedia currently has;
How so?
--you do not accept the current verifiability policy;
Probably not. But then I'm a pretty disagreeable fellow.
--you believe that information based solely on the personal testimony of an individual Wikipedian is acceptable content.
Huh?