On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
In my mind verifiable, as used in Wikipedia, implies that it is easily verifiable.
I have to disagree, for most applicable meanings of "easily". I can verify lots of stuff by going down to my son's college library; if I cite a review paper in Nature or a graduate-level textbook, odds are the average joe won't be able to just click on Google and find a reliable verification, and his local reference library probably won't carry it.
If something is asserted without providing any source, and a quick good faith effort to find a source fails, I'd say verifiability has failed.
Well at the moment we've got some editors openly defending the practice of deleting without *any* good faith search, so this is an improvement.
My latest proposal suggested that articles were merely moved to the user namespace, 24 hours after creation, and only after the user was notified and a good faith effort to locate a source had failed.
Leaving it in main namespace with a notice is better because the article may still be useful, and if it's accessible it may be edited to add references. I don't see what good is done by moving to a user namespace.