There is quite a difference between unverifiable and something that is just difficult to verify. There are also overlaps with 'no original research' here. In the end, common sense needs to be factored in. What is common knowledge in one part of the world may not be in another. Verifiability should not be turned into a bureaucratic exercise, where information is removed because it hasn't filled its form in correctly. Of course, editors should be challenged to give supporting evidence for something, but it should not be rejected just because it cannot be supported by internet sources or an American/Australian/British library. Such a line would only increase the systemic bias towards English-speaking computer users in developed countries. The world is growing ever smaller, but it's not yet that small.
Gareth Hughes.
On 02/03/06, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Indeed, but something that is inherently unverifiable, as an otherwise unpublished report is, is never a reasonable source.
Jon
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: Too grim. What is a reasonable source varies with the subject.
Fred
On Mar 2, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Jon wrote:
To be blunt, which bit of saying that every bit of info must be supported by a verifiable and reputable source is unclear?
In this instance, the information is clearly unverifiable, so it shouldn't be added.
Jon
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l