stevage@gmail.com wrote:
To me, it's another example of Wikipedia being perceived as something which it is not, which is basically our fault. The two biggest misconceptions here are: a) that Wikipedia is an "encyclopaedia" with fact checking and editorial standards against publishing anything that is not known to be true
Er, that's not a misconception! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we do have fact checking, and we do have editorial standards. The verifiability policy is a mechanism to ensure we publish trustworthy information. And that's exactly why Boroson's addition was removed. If he had any insight, he would have commended Wikipedia for asking for sources, rather than taking him (an anonymous editor) at his word.
-- Matt