I'd like to point out 2 fallacies in parent's post:
1.) Just because content is not interesting *to you*, does not make it not interesting *in general*.
2.) Just because content was not *cited or verified*, does not make it *unverifiable*.
Example:
If I go to the "Occam's Razor" article, scroll down to the list of variations and examples, and add Greg House's version, it IS pretty damn well verifiable.
The responsibility IS mine to reference the "Season X, Episode Y, Scene Z, (HH:MM:SS timecode)" source. But if I omit that, it does NOT make the content unverifi*able* - only *unverified*.
You're confusing people being lazy with content being unprovable. Correlation is not causation, etc.
P.S.: on a related note, when an encyclopedia does not give you all the neat footnotes, you may have to get off your ass and do your own research. Life is hard, I know.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to point out 2 fallacies in parent's post:
1.) Just because content is not interesting *to you*, does not make it not interesting *in general*.
2.) Just because content was not *cited or verified*, does not make it *unverifiable*.
Example:
If I go to the "Occam's Razor" article, scroll down to the list of variations and examples, and add Greg House's version, it IS pretty damn well verifiable.
The responsibility IS mine to reference the "Season X, Episode Y, Scene Z, (HH:MM:SS timecode)" source. But if I omit that, it does NOT make the content unverifi*able* - only *unverified*.
You're confusing people being lazy with content being unprovable. Correlation is not causation, etc.
P.S.: on a related note, when an encyclopedia does not give you all the neat footnotes, you may have to get off your ass and do your own research. Life is hard, I know.