[WikiEN-l] WP:RS >> WP:V

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

"David Goodman" wrote

> To say all food served should be edible is begging the question. Food
> by definition is things suitable to be eaten. To say something needs
> to be verifiable without saying what it means is not much help in
> practice. Just like "notable" or "encyclopedic"
> 
>  > On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:47:33 -0800, "jossi fresco"
> > <jossif at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I spy a dangerous fallacy. It may be that you can't _define_
> Verifiability without defining "reliable source". But we can certainly
> _agree_ to Veriability without defining "reliable source". And in fact
> we have.
> 
> (One can agree that food served in a restaurant should be edible,
> without defining "edible".)

My point entirely, though. We have a "question begging" culture. "Notability" begs the question "noted by whom?". We cope.

The other extreme is a wikilawyering culture. The correct answer to the "you haven't defined your terms" is: cui bono? Does making things more black-and-white in an area help the project, or (as here) help pettifogging editors who are going to raise source criticism to such an art that only access to a huge academic library will allow people to contribute? "Duck tests" for verifiability make a lot of sense, actually. 

What we do is to make operational decisions, such as allowing AfD to cut through notability imponderables. This is for the best.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam