Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Proposed revision

Missing websites

Sometimes notable things are only verifiable from a few websites. How are we supposed to keep articles verifiable when such sites (even articles by reputable newspapers) go missing? - 131.211.210.14 08:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of a sourcing question, but verifiability has never meant "easy online verifiability". There are a lot of books that aren't online, and most scientific articles are hard to find outside of libraries, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be referenced. --The Cunctator 13:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of verifiability

The following was added:

"Verifiable information" has either been published by reliable sources (such as books or newspapers), or are directly verifiable in a practical way (such as CD track listings or level names in a computer game).

Providing a definition of verifiable information is, I think, outside the scope of the Verifiability policy. (Or is it?) The policy/guidelines of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Try to verify and Wikipedia:Citing sources hammer down the current thought on what is or is not verifiable. In other words, I don't think the *policy itself* should restrict the definition of verifiability outside of common sense. --The Cunctator 23:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dividing the page

Personally I am opposed to dividing the page. Given that wikipedia is not paper, length in and of itself is not a problem. But this explains only why I see no need to divide it; I have other reasons for being opposed to dividing it. I believe that the detail provided on different ways to comply with the policy are essential to a sound understanding of the policy. It is easier for someone to go to the policy and read the first few paragraphs and then decide they get the point, than for someone to go to the policy and then have to follow various links to other articles because they still aren't clear. By the way, I suspect that some of the Cunctators concerns with the policy - specifically Jguk's version - have to do with cuts Jguk made. I urge the Cunctator to look at the pre-Jguk-cuts-version and see if that version preempted his concerns. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I just think that the idea of separating the statement of policy from interpretation and analysis of policy is always good. Like the Torah and the Talmud, or the Koran and the Haddith. Think about what is likely to remain immutable and what will change as Wikipedia changes over time. Examples of dealing with verifiability are dependent on the current instance of Wikipedia -- but the policy of verifiability is not. --The Cunctator 21:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]