sorry dennis but this doesn't convince me you're 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 you're telling me that if i write an article referencing the sump website then that's just my opinion and it's 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 don't accept the assertion that just because something is published it's reliable and if it's not reliable it's a soft fact it's 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 boot strapping system as employed by wikipedia is illogical and is not likely to produce accurate or reliable articles it's just as likely if not more likely to propogate misinformation i won't 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 it's will stay wrong for some time and if that doesn't illustrate the fundamental weakness of the verifiability dogma then i don't know what does