Do You know that not all could be verified and for some points is it unnecessary the verifiability?
IMHO only disputed article MUST have references and MUST be supported by verifiability to limit personal opinions and to avoid the article to become a "drawing room". For other article this choice could be optional.
In scientific editions all MUST be checked and confirmed by the authority of others books or researches, but there is a limit... also the books and researches could make a mistake. If a researcher takes care extremely on them, he has not chance.
And in any case not all could be found in references... after this limit we cross in the research and this is this should be hoped because without the research there is no progress.
The choice is here: Wikipedia looks to be a simple collector of knowledge (verified and checked) or Wikipedia believes to be opened also to the new researches?
At end one reflection, when Einstein was producing his new theories all scientists judged him as a bizarre man also because there was nothing to support his suppositions... now his suppositions are a pillar in the Physic. This is a conclusion to display that references don't assure the certitude and the truth.
There are men who need extreme verifiability and they like to call themselves as "pragmatic", there are other men who need critic verifiability to start a journey for new borders, to see over the first ones.
Ilario
----Messaggio originale---- Da: Christoph.Seydl@students.jku.at Data: 17.09.06 10.52 A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"foundation-l@wikimedia.org Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Verifiability: Constitution?
Contrary: If the principle of verifiability is not defined in basic principles, there is always discordance:
....
You see that there is a lot of discordance among Wikipedians. If there is no policy, there is always dispute how to deal with verifiability. The question is: Which information has to be sourced? I think that the verifiability issue should be outlined, if it is a pillar.
/Chris
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Saying that we follow the principle of verifiability should be
enough.
When you get too specific, we unfortunately have many people who
are
determined to take it to extremes at either end of the scale.
Some will
accept the most ephemeral of data as verification, while others
will
insist that even the most broadly observed information must
'''always'''
show references.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org