I'm comfortable with the proposed findings. There is a problem with
dragging Veriditas in, less of a problem with bringing Jayjg in. But
that is because Snowspinner didn't adequately investigate the
transaction. When you look at the whole transaction, there were 4
users involved, not just one bad apple, however cranky he may be.
Fred
On Dec 24, 2005, at 1:23 PM, Jon wrote:
Fred
Thanks for your comments.
If the problem is as you say it is (and I haven't read the
details of the case myself), then the problem seems not to be that
sources were asked for (even though a google search might have
found some quickly), but rather:
(i) When they were provided, due consideration wasn't given to them.
(ii) That sources weren't provided by those asking for the other
side to provide them.
I deliberately use "due consideration" in (i) as after due
consideration the conclusion may be that the source is crap (as
David Gerard has said).
I'd also argue strongly that if a google search could have found
reliable sources quickly, it is still the job of the editor adding
the information to do the work to find them. After all, the first
10 or so links in google might be, on closer examination, totally
unsuitable as references.
Could you give consideration to rewording the proposed Finding of
Fact and Remedy to better target the mischief you believe is there?
Many thanks
Jon
Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
My thought (I wrote these) was that they were harassing him. Of
course he has to provide sources, but so do they. If their purpose is
to strongly resist any edit which offends their point of view they
don't feel they need to bother to look the subject up. They can play
the "provide sources" game. Note that when Xed finally came up with
some sources they deleted them, not good enough. These folks were
engaged in game playing. To Viriditas's credit, he kept looking and
found a really good reference that substantially improved the article.
Fred
On Dec 24, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Jon wrote:
I've just seen a couple of proposed decisions
by the ArbCom that
are very worrying from the point of view of making sure Wikipedia
has reliable, sourced information.
They are on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Proposed_decision
The proposals I have difficulty with are as follows:-
3.2.2 Sources demanded 2) After Xed restored, Jayjg demanded
sources [6] [7] despite the fact that a simple Google search [8]
gives 80,000 hits. He also removed any reference to occupation.
and
3.3.3 Viriditas and Jayjg reminded regarding NPOV 3) Viriditas
(talk • contribs) and Jayjg (talk • contribs) are reminded that
Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise which operates by consensus.
Masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding
sources is inappropriate
Regarding the first one, I think it is fundamentally important
that the onus is on the editor inserting information into an
article to provide a source. It's easy to add information - but
time-consuming to check it's veracity (particularly if you don't
know where it's come from).
Regarding the second one, I don't believe it can ever be wrong to
ask for sources for unreference information. Indeed, one good way
of NPOV'ing articles is to make sure everything in them is properly
sourced.
Taken together these rulings, if passed (and they are in the
balance now), could create serious difficulty when dealing with
trolls and other disruptive users. User:Troll adds a "fact" in a
controversial article. User:Troll then refuses to remove it because
other readers can't cite a source disproving it or says it is for
others to find the source, but the "fact" should remain, whilst
dismissing editors who are even asking him for sources for his
edits as being POV warriors and warning them that ArbCom has
already found against their position.
Yours concernedly
Jon
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just
8p a photo.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---------------------------------
Play Santa's Celebrity Xmas Party, an exclusive game from Yahoo!
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l