3 ms·

Sure, I'm just saying that this is considered in the existing wikipedia standards. For a claim to be "verifiable" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Veri

Sure, I'm just saying that this is considered in the existing wikipedia standards. For a claim to be "verifiable" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) it must be supported by a citation to a source which is "reliable", which includes being "accessible" enough that someone can check it. But print and paywalled sources are still considered to meet the accessibility criterion. ("Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf.", "The costs or difficulties of verifying a source do not impact its reliability, so long as it is possible for someone to verify it within a reasonable time.")

chris_wot 11y ago
Maybe that needs clarifying then. A source that comes up with information that can't be verified isn't terribly reliable, and thus not really verifiable. Every single anti-vaccination site does this. Here's an example: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/ http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impo... "The Deadly Impossibility of Herd Immunity". There are claims in there such as "as the literature shows" with no reference to the literature itself. It makes a lot of claims and refers to some sort of group that it doesn't even identify to characterise claims by vaccination specialists, and gets a lot of facts wrong about herd immunity. Thus, as a source it is unreliable in that it doesn't clearly state its own sources, so I'd have to call it unverifiable.