On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
In my mind verifiable, as used in Wikipedia, implies that it is easily
verifiable.
I have to disagree, for most applicable meanings of "easily". I can
verify lots of stuff by going down to my son's college library; if I
cite a review paper in Nature or a graduate-level textbook, odds are
the average joe won't be able to just click on Google and find a
reliable verification, and his local reference library probably won't
carry it.
If something is asserted without providing any
source,
and a quick good faith effort to find a source fails, I'd say
verifiability has failed.
Well at the moment we've got some editors openly defending the
practice of deleting without *any* good faith search, so this is an
improvement.
My latest proposal suggested that articles were merely
moved to the
user namespace, 24 hours after creation, and only after the user was
notified and a good faith effort to locate a source had failed.
Leaving it in main namespace with a notice is better because the
article may still be useful, and if it's accessible it may be edited
to add references. I don't see what good is done by moving to a user
namespace.