"Thomas Dalton" write
You've just answered your own question.
Getting lucky is hardly a good method of verifying something... If it can't be verified promptly then we have a problem.
But Cunc dealt with this. 'Verifiable' is an in-principle thing. It is distinct from saying everyone can do homebrew fact-checking on anything mentioned. Verifiability on Wikipedia can't simply be a sceptics' charter: that really would be a problem.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
But Cunc dealt with this. 'Verifiable' is an in-principle thing. It is distinct from saying everyone can do homebrew fact-checking on anything mentioned. Verifiability on Wikipedia can't simply be a sceptics' charter: that really would be a problem.
Verifiable means we can actually verify it to be true. Not in principle, but in practise. The whole point of verifiable sources is that we can be sure we don't have things stated on Wikipedia that aren't true - some vague kind of hypothetical verifiability doesn't help that.
Look: only people with access to nuclear reactors and extreme training can verify what's in any number of Wikipedia entries on nuclear physics.
It COULD all be a DANGEROUS HOAX foisted upon us by scientists.
I mean, what proof do I have that the half-life of Polonium-210 is actually 138.376 days? Maybe it's really 139.24 days. Maybe Polonium-210 doesn't EVEN EXIST.
Only a few select people with access to Polonium-210 can verify that information.
But EVERY SINGLE ONE of those people can.
Similarly, maybe only a few people have access to Star-Gate episode #23. But if they say that in that episode Cmdr. Pickett gets eaten by a Florgbernian Rumpox, then I'm willing to ASSUME GOOD FAITH.
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But Cunc dealt with this. 'Verifiable' is an in-principle thing. It is
distinct from saying everyone can do homebrew fact-checking on anything mentioned. Verifiability on Wikipedia can't simply be a sceptics' charter: that really would be a problem.
Verifiable means we can actually verify it to be true. Not in principle, but in practise. The whole point of verifiable sources is that we can be sure we don't have things stated on Wikipedia that aren't true - some vague kind of hypothetical verifiability doesn't help that. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/8/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I mean, what proof do I have that the half-life of Polonium-210 is actually 138.376 days? Maybe it's really 139.24 days. Maybe Polonium-210 doesn't EVEN EXIST.
Only a few select people with access to Polonium-210 can verify that information.
Nyet pretty common in certian aplications for removeing static charges.
I mean, what proof do I have that the half-life of Polonium-210 is actually 138.376 days? Maybe it's really 139.24 days. Maybe Polonium-210 doesn't EVEN EXIST.
It's not difficult to get access to a scientific paper or a textbook that states the half-life. You don't have to be able to verify that something is true, you need to be able to verify that the source given really says when it's being claimed it says.
Why should I believe a scientific paper or textbook?
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I mean, what proof do I have that the half-life of Polonium-210 is
actually
138.376 days? Maybe it's really 139.24 days. Maybe Polonium-210 doesn't
EVEN
EXIST.
It's not difficult to get access to a scientific paper or a textbook that states the half-life. You don't have to be able to verify that something is true, you need to be able to verify that the source given really says when it's being claimed it says. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Why should I believe a scientific paper or textbook?
You don't have to believe it. If you choose not to believe the source, that's fine, but we have a policy on what sources we consider reliable. A few fans of a TV show is not on that list.
If you disagree with Wikipedia's definition of reliable, you should try and get consensus to change it. Until you do, that's the definition we go by, and by that definition, a scientific paper is reliable, a random fan of a TV show is not.
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.
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Why should I believe a scientific paper or textbook?
You don't have to believe it. If you choose not to believe the source, that's fine, but we have a policy on what sources we consider reliable. A few fans of a TV show is not on that list.
If you disagree with Wikipedia's definition of reliable, you should try and get consensus to change it. Until you do, that's the definition we go by, and by that definition, a scientific paper is reliable, a random fan of a TV show is not. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Similarly, maybe only a few people have access to Star-Gate episode #23. But if they say that in that episode Cmdr. Pickett gets eaten by a Florgbernian Rumpox, then I'm willing to ASSUME GOOD FAITH.
In which case, your source isn't the episode, it's those few people that watched the episode. The episode is reliable, those few people are not. Therefore, you do not have a reliable source.