Sure, I&#x27;m just saying that this is considered in the existing wikipedia standards.<p>For a claim to be &quot;verifiable&quot; (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Verifiability" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Verifiability</a>) it must be supported by a citation to a source which is &quot;reliable&quot;, which includes being &quot;accessible&quot; enough that someone can check it. But print and paywalled sources are still considered to meet the accessibility criterion. (&quot;Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf.&quot;, &quot;The costs or difficulties of verifying a source do not impact its reliability, so long as it is possible for someone to verify it within a reasonable time.&quot;)