On 5/26/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
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?
Yeah, pretty much. I'm talking about the definition as it applies to Wikipedia.
As your other post notes, this makes "notability" an issue, but it always has been.
Actually, notability is a fairly recent issue with regard to the history of Wikipedia. Verifiability isn't.
And I think a bit of subjective good judgment is better than redefining words to mean strange things.
Fair enough. I should have been more clear that I was talking specifically about Wikipedia's verifiability policy.
Of course, the initial question I asked was in response to a statement made by Jimbo, and I had assumed he *was* talking specifically about Wikipedia's verifiability policy. In fact, I'm still not sure whether or not he was.
Anthony