[WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

[Daniel P. B. Smith]

> From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
>
> On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> Yes.

It seems to me, then, that

--you have a different definition of "verifiable" than Wikipedia  
currently has;

--you do not accept the current verifiability policy;

--you believe that information based solely on the personal testimony  
of an individual Wikipedian is acceptable content.