On 02/03/06, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk 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
Why shouldn't unverifiable information be added? Most of the content on Wikipedia is unverified.
Are people going to go and remove it all?
It's pretty POV to just pick and choose the stuff you don't like, and remove it because of it being "unverifiable".
I'll point out that I think it's most sensible to rely only on verified information, but Wikipedia has not in the past seriously implemented such theoretical ideals. If people are going to start doing so, do it across the board please. I don't doubt the encyclopaedia would be a vast amount smaller and less broad if only verified information is left in it! Wikipedia has not succeeded at even beginning to conform to its ideals.
Zoney
-- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...