[WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

[Daniel P. B. Smith]

> From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
>

> If someone says that in Episode X of Show Y this happened, I can't  
> imagine
> why I wouldn't believe it.
>
> And I can imagine any number of ways by which if I *had* to I could  
> verify
> such claim, including going to the production company or the Museum of
> Television and Radio or asking on craigslist to view such episode.

If someone (e.g. 68.80.254.34) says:

"Third floor of College Hall at Penn has an Episcopalian Chapel. On  
the wall states that Penn was founded by the Anglican Church of  
England. Go there and read it," would you say that "I can't imagine  
why I wouldn't believe it?"

Anyone _could_ travel to Philadelphia and visit College Hall. Does  
that make the fact verifiable?

How about this one.

In the 1960s, I _know_ that someone at Digital, and I'm _almost  
certain_ it was Alan Kotok, told me that one of the reasons why DEC  
changed its name from DEC to Digital was that they wanted to head off  
a potential trademark dispute with the Dairy Equipment Corporation of  
Madison, Wisconsin ("DEC International.") I put in our article on  
Digital. Someone challenged it and removed it. I couldn't find a  
source. I emailed Alan Kotok about a year ago, asking if he  
remembered it.

My source is Alan Kotok. It's too bad that he didn't remember it, and  
even sadder that he is now deceased. But I'm sure it's true and I'm  
almost sure I heard it from him. Should I put it back in the article?  
I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't believe me.