Board Thread:Metal Gear Solid V/@comment-6747658-20150826194634/@comment-1672596-20150828011746

64.33.250.214 wrote: Excuse me for interjecting, but I don't think anyone is going to change Weedle's mind. He seems to suffer from some form of dyslexia, which makes it difficult for him to understand the difference between evidence and proof. If you were to take a picture of a saucer-shaped cloud and post it on the internet, apparently it would be proof enough to Weedle that UFOs exist.

I agree with you guys, two photos is not proof. If a leaker can take even one photo of the game, they should be able to take several more. There'd be no reason not to. They're already supposedly spoiling the game's plot, so there's really no point in holding back footage. It's not whether I'm right or not, it's whether those sources have been proven to be reliable, and considering he had managed to spot a person who tried to trick him into giving false info before he could do any damage, that sounds like someone who's reliable by most people's definition. You keep on demanding for images and videos, yet you guys don't seem to use common sense regarding whether they are reliable. I'm pretty sure most people would be pretty certain that people who are talking on a thread whose expressed purpose is to cover spoilers and leaks from the game, by players who have either owned an early release for the game, were journalists involved in actually seeing the game, watched streams of people who have played the game, saw people who had involvement in the game and made a guidebook about it that also got leaked before release, and/or had actually gotten their information via messages from someone who had proven themselves extensively to have played and beaten the game would qualify as "reliable sources." It's not like I went to a random topic that just stated something for the heck of it, or talked to a random bum on the street who might not even know the game. No, I actually made sure this was a topic that was specifically geared for spoilers. Had it been any other place, that would have been considered good marksmanship and someone who does focus on giving reliable sources.

You know what wikis lack? A good dose of common sense. Yes, screenshots and videos are definitely good for verification, but there not the only reliable sources. You can also go for people who, you know, actually PLAYED a game that was released earlier than intended, and in places where it's pretty clear people wouldn't try to make things up if their life depended on it.