[Foundation-l] Verifiability: Constitution?

[Andre Engels]

2006/9/17, Christoph Seydl <Christoph.Seydl at students.jku.at>:
> Jimbo Wales says: "I can NOT emphasize this enough.    There seems to be
> a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative
> 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs
> a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be
> sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of
> negative information about living persons.    I think a fair number of
> people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy
> writers. (This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude
> and frustration.)"
> (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046433.html)

But how do you define 'can be sourced'? The only way that you can show
that something can be sourced is by sourcing it. Does this mean that
we should remove all unsourced statements from all articles? If so,
there will be little Wikipedia left. If not, then what do we accept
without source and what not?

-- 
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels