Re: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy - WikiEN-l

Steve Summit

4 Mar 4 Mar

8:21 p.m.

New subject: The new verifiability policy

I wrote:

Those interested in verifiability, and in particular whether "insufficiently verified" information can be rightfully removed, might be interested in a controversy bubbling over at the [[Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] page. That page contains information critical of Merkey which was derived from the [[Linux Kernel Mailing List]]...

Never mind; the issue is a bit more subtle than I appreciated at first. It's not that unflattering things were said about Merkey on the mailing list. It's that Merkey *did* unflattering things on the mailing list, things that have been amply documented elsewhere. (I remember reading about them at the time.)

Reply

Steve Bennett

5 Mar 5 Mar

4:31 a.m.

New subject: The new verifiability policy

I've been trying to get my head around why we even have a rule about what an acceptable source is. It seems to me that this is how things should work. A WP article must only exist if its subject has been referred to in a reputable source (notability, mostly). This source should, but need not, be cited. Information in WP articles must be verifiable. This means either: - the information is directly verifiable (eg, you could figure out who to ring up to find whether a train timetable was accurate) - or, the information has been published by a secondary source. The source must be either reputable or cited. Ie, if the information has been published in a peer reviewed journal, then not having cited that source is not a major problem (someone else can find it later). Similarly, quoting a weblog is ok, as long as the source is given, since readers can evaluate its reputability for themselves Is this a reasonable ruleset? At the moment we seem to have nonsense rules flying around like every piece of information added must be cited to a reputable source, which is neither common practice, nor practical, nor desirable. If this ruleset is ok, then developing guidelines flows naturally. If you think information breaks one of the rules, you can remove it. If you think it has never been published anywhere reputable (and a disreputable source is not provided), then remove it to the talk page. Note that I'm setting the bar quite low here - obviously it is desirable that we cite sources. But we need to be strict about exactly what should never be in Wikipedia. Steve On 3/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 3/4/06, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:

I wrote:

Those interested in verifiability, and in particular whether "insufficiently verified" information can be rightfully removed, might be interested in a controversy bubbling over at the [[Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] page. That page contains information critical of Merkey which was derived from the [[Linux Kernel Mailing List]]...

Never mind; the issue is a bit more subtle than I appreciated at first. It's not that unflattering things were said about Merkey on the mailing list. It's that Merkey *did* unflattering things on the mailing list, things that have been amply documented elsewhere. (I remember reading about them at the time.)

See [[Wikipedia:Verifiability/Proposed revision]] for one that boils things down. I think it's a good idea for the question of "what's an acceptable source" to be distinct to the rule of verifiability. The latter is central to Wikipedia; the former is a much more contentious and fuzzy issue. People need to understand that primary sources are always acceptable. E.g. if you're referring to a mailing list archive to discuss the mailing list archive, or (for example) the text of someone's post to a mailing list, that's totally fine and what historians and journalists of computer history do all the time. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Steve Block

8:55 p.m.

New subject: The new verifiability policy

Steve Bennett wrote:

...

I've been trying to get my head around why we even have a rule about what an acceptable source is.

I think it was developed with articles on scientific subjects in mind, rather than cultural ones. I suppose it depends where you sit on pseudoscience. Should people be able to assert that levitation exists, or that the grand theory of everything is y=2+b, stuff like that. When we move into cultural and historical topics I think there is certainly a case for relaxing the sourcing requirements somewhat. But I do think there should be standards, but they have to be contextualised by the information that is being sourced: it seems reasonable to source opinion and commentary from blogs, history should be sourcable by building a narrative from a chain of events, but scientific theory should be sourced from peer reviewed journals, that sort of thing. I guess there's also issue with the denouncing of sources. For example, the recent afd over Neglected Mario Characters webcomic hinged on the claim for notability, namely for being potentially the first sprite web comic. Research was performed using the Internet Archive, and that was challenged as original research. To my mind the source should have been challenged, since the archive is not complete and may miss stuff, but that shouldn't preclude using the information sourced; rather we should note that fact in the citation. Steve block -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.2/274 - Release Date: 03/03/06

Reply

The Cunctator

11:04 p.m.

New subject: The new verifiability policy

What you're saying is a) just about right and b) certainly not what the current policy says. On 3/4/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I've been trying to get my head around why we even have a rule about what an acceptable source is. It seems to me that this is how things should work. A WP article must only exist if its subject has been referred to in a reputable source (notability, mostly). This source should, but need not, be cited. Information in WP articles must be verifiable. This means either: - the information is directly verifiable (eg, you could figure out who to ring up to find whether a train timetable was accurate) - or, the information has been published by a secondary source. The source must be either reputable or cited. Ie, if the information has been published in a peer reviewed journal, then not having cited that source is not a major problem (someone else can find it later). Similarly, quoting a weblog is ok, as long as the source is given, since readers can evaluate its reputability for themselves Is this a reasonable ruleset? At the moment we seem to have nonsense rules flying around like every piece of information added must be cited to a reputable source, which is neither common practice, nor practical, nor desirable. If this ruleset is ok, then developing guidelines flows naturally. If you think information breaks one of the rules, you can remove it. If you think it has never been published anywhere reputable (and a disreputable source is not provided), then remove it to the talk page. Note that I'm setting the bar quite low here - obviously it is desirable that we cite sources. But we need to be strict about exactly what should never be in Wikipedia. Steve On 3/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 3/4/06, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:

I wrote:

Those interested in verifiability, and in particular whether "insufficiently verified" information can be rightfully removed, might be interested in a controversy bubbling over at the [[Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] page. That page contains information critical of Merkey which was derived from the [[Linux Kernel Mailing List]]...

Never mind; the issue is a bit more subtle than I appreciated at first. It's not that unflattering things were said about Merkey on the mailing list. It's that Merkey *did* unflattering things on the mailing list, things that have been amply documented elsewhere. (I remember reading about them at the time.)

See [[Wikipedia:Verifiability/Proposed revision]] for one that boils things down. I think it's a good idea for the question of "what's an acceptable source" to be distinct to the rule of verifiability. The latter is central to Wikipedia; the former is a much more contentious and fuzzy issue. People need to understand that primary sources are always acceptable. E.g. if you're referring to a mailing list archive to discuss the mailing list archive, or (for example) the text of someone's post to a mailing list, that's totally fine and what historians and journalists of computer history do all the time. _______________________________________________ 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

Reply