Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/26/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I've
always taken "verifiability" to mean verifiable *in a reputable
source*. Some people disagree, of course (apparently you're one of
them), but I wasn't aware that Jimmy Wales was one of them.
However, the existence of that blog is a valid source that "X has a
blog called Y".
Well, what I'm saying is that no, it isn't, or at least that it shouldn't
be.
I guess you must be using some jargonish meaning of "verifiable" that is
not in keeping with the standard English meaning of the word? I find it
difficult to claim that the existence of a website at
www.foo.com
stating "foo.com is run by bar" is not a reputable and verifiable source
for the statement "the website
www.foo.com claims to be run by bar".
The source is indeed verifiable (even into the future, thanks to
archive.org), and leaves little room to doubt that the statement it's
supporting is true.
I think the issue is one of notability---the statement "the website
www.foo.com claims to be run by bar" is only worth including if
foo.com
is a famous website.
As your other post notes, this makes "notability" an issue, but it
always has been. When we choose to publish facts on private people
versus public people, for example, is a judgment call about how
"notable" they are---not anything to do with verifiability, as many
private/non-notable people have information about them verifiable from
e.g. phone books. And I think a bit of subjective good judgment is
better than redefining words to mean strange things.
-Mark