On 5/26/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Precisely my point. It is an editorial judgment. We can't say "just because it is true and verifiable we should post it in wikipedia".
So you believe that ranting criticisms on blogs constitute "verifiable" information?
Ranting criticisms on blogs certainly constitute verification for writing "It has been claimed he eats babies". They do not constitute verification for "He eats babies".
Not according to [[wp:V]] they don't. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
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.
Anthony