Sorry Dennis but this doesnt convince me Youre saying that a Wikipedia visitor can check facts for themselves by checking the sources but this simply presupposes that the source is correct It sounds like youre telling me that if I write an article referencing the Sump website then thats just my opinion and its unverifiable But if someone else writes an article referencing the Sump website then that IS verifiable and that makes it okay Well that sounds daft to me It makes more sense to examine the preponderance of evidence and listen to counter arguments albeit in the form of links I simply dont accept the assertion that just because something is published its reliable and if its not reliable its a soft fact Its just opinion Yes published articles are verifiable but so what An alternative system would be one where the Wikipedia author looks at other offered articles examines them for credibility and rationality even if the article contradicts the existing orthodoxy and then decides whether to include a given link But the bootstrapping system as employed by Wikipedia is illogical and is not likely to produce accurate or reliable articles Its just as likely if not more likely to propogate misinformation I wont be editing the Ariel page Ultimately faith underpins everything not least the credibility of verifiable sources If the Ariel page is wrong now which it is then its will stay wrong for some time  and if that doesnt illustrate the fundamental weakness of the verifiability dogma then I dont know what does