Verify

Sometimes experts have to speculate based on their experience rather than give hard factual answers - particularly in a subjective context, such as a personal review. While this should be limited as much as possible, and particularly avoided on more "encyclopedic" articles, it's a fact of life when it comes to the past, and to a vast and perpetually incomplete volunteer effort such as this.

We must be as responsible as possible in this regard, while remembering that our goal is to make information more accessible - sometimes a human touch is more important than absolute accuracy, but it's up to you to determine what your level of responsibility is.

Example:

Take the case of the following assertion on a review of a little-known golf computer game: "The requirements for the game specify an 80286, but I suspect it would run very poorly. A 486 or higher is probably necessary."

The writer has not tested this assertion and might be surprised if they did, but it is acceptable for several reasons:

• The historical significance of this single title is minimal. If this were a more significant title, such as Microsoft Flight Simulator or Windows 2.0, the author should be more careful. Complicated and incorrect conclusions about much of computing history could be drawn from this simple assertion.
• Leaving it out could constitute a waste of the author's (a purported expert) knowledge. If they suspect that the software developer was misleading in their specifications, that is worth investigating
• It's relatively easy to test this assertion later, and including it may encourage others to do so

Still, the author has a responsibility to consider how impactful this is and whether it should be highlighted as a dubious assertion. The best way to do this is with the {{Verify}} template, which adds a ^{[ Verify ]} link. This will both inform readers that this info hasn't been confirmed, and encourage capable readers to verify and update the info.