[WikiEN-l] Widespread disagreement with Wikipedia:Verifiability

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/31/2008 11:40:47 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
arromdee at rahul.net writes:

You are  arguing that the rules should be followed.  My point is that the  
rules
produce an undesirable result in this  case.>>


----------------------------
And you will find that those of us who monitor those talk pages, are very  
willing to have our minds changed on those talk pages and this would lead to a  
more clear understanding of this sort of situation.
 
I don't so far, find the argument about the covered bridge,  compelling.  The 
archive entry seems confused at best with the original  poster not 
understanding the distinction we draw between print sources and  photographs.  That 
would be the first clue that something is amiss  here.  I personally would point 
them to that sub-section and request they  add their photographs to the 
article.  Esp. any photo dated, and showing, a  vehicle passing through the bridge.
 
Secondarily, I would suggest they *contact* the publishers of the other  
sources to ask them to clarify the position currently, on that particular  bridge. 
 This has been done before, it's not a extreme position, many cases  it's 
quite simple to get a re-published retraction or correction, provided this  comes 
in the form of a public statement (website, newsletter) and not in the  form 
of a private email.
 
This could then be cited as evidence that the bridge is re-open or open to  
private traffic or whatever.
 
Will Johnson



**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL 
Home.      
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom00030000000001)