[Foundation-l] Verifiability: Constitution? Question for Jimbo!

[Andrew Lih]

On 9/17/06, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Andre Engels wrote:
>
> >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)
> >>
> >>
> Dear Jimbo:
>
> I challenge you to find me a reference/citation for:
>
> ''When walking on the major street towards increasing soi numbers, all
> the even-numbered sois are on the right side and the odd-numbered ones
> on the left side of the street. If for instance a new soi is added
> between soi 7 and soi 9 it will get the number soi 7/1, the next one soi
> 7/2 etc. It is also possible that soi 20 is far away from soi 21 if
> there are more sois on one side of the street than on the other.''
>
>  From the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soi

Is this sufficient?
http://www.frommers.com/destinations/bangkok/0071024195.html

> Not everything can be referenced, or a reference is almost impossible to
> provide. But what stands there is the truth, so should we delete this
> just because it is unreferenced?

I agree that over-referenceing can be a problem. This case of Soi
numbering might fall right between "needs" and "doesn't need it."

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)