Talk:Corroborating evidence/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
nod
How do you people come up with this stuff? Do you do this for a living?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.157.14 (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary; therefore, what more can be said about corroborating evidence that makes it clear that this topic can be given more than just a dictionary definition? For example, can we add a discourse on the meaning (history, etc.) of "corroborating evidence" as an important piece of, e.g., legal jargon? --LMS
But, the organization of this topic (and others) lists a series of often obscure (to the lay reader) terms that require concise definitions to be useful. That does not make Wikipedia a dictionary because (eventually), for example, one could read a piece on "corroborating evidence" as part of a larger article on the history and use of evidence.
Could do with a discussion on to what extent corroboration is required by evidential law of different jurisdictions perhaps?195.33.121.133 18:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Although he does not specifically mention Wikipedia by name, Stephen Colbert refers to "open-source encyclopedias" on page 156 of I Am America (And So Can You!) and states that he believes "corroborated" should now mean "a zesty sour cream-based dip." Although there is no "corroborated" page in Wikipedia, this is the closest thing. Should it be protected against vandalism based on previous Colbert-related strikes?Mobo85 22:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)