In contrast, how should we handle indiscriminate deletions of unsourced (but possibly verifiable) material? 2007/8/10, michael west <michawest(a)gmail.com>om>:

J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote: Of course, any deletion of unsourced material is likely to bring forth cries that it is "indiscriminate" by partisans who are too lazy or dishonest to go find a source. For this reason, in practice, it is generally to be applauded. :) --Jimbo

Jimmy Wales wrote: I find this to be a disappointingly provocative attitude. While repeatedly hearing from journalists and others who interview you that Wikipedia is not reliable is bound to eventually have you believing them, I cannot believe that the situation is anywhere near so bad. There is no need to leave the impression that each such criticism touches a raw nerve. perhaps the questioner has just not been thorough in doing his homework. Sure "lazy or dishonest" partisans will make the kinds of complaints that you mention, but the reverse is not true. One cannot conclude that the people who make such complaints are necessarily partisan, lazy or dishonest. There are many who demand sources, and are just as lazy as those they accuse of laziness. Ultimately, the person who offers information as fact is responsible for sourcing his information, but this does not imply any immediate need in the absence of a meaningful challenge to that fact. None among us who has lasted a significant amount of time around the Wikimedia projects supports totally unsourced facts, but I also think that we all realize that sourcing involves considerably more than putting up an indiscriminate series of tags. It is a multifaceted process where we cannot and must not rest comfortably just because new information is accompanied by a tag that perfectly follows the guidelines for good tag formatting. Certainly, there remain many articles that are completely unsourced, and I commend those Wikipedians who quietly make the effort to find sources for those articles without raising a storm of criticism about the failures of the original editors, who may themselves have contributed a couple of years ago. Where an article is deficient collaboration is best accomplished by making the article better, not by whining about the failures of others. Applauding aggressive and confrontational ultimata for dealing with sourcing problems does not make for a better community or a better encyclopedia. Promoting a balanced and neutral approach would accomplish a lot more, and would be more in keeping with the principles that got this project where it is now. Ec

The situation is not *so* bad. Wikipedia *is* an extraordinary source of information. BUT: you cannot go to wikipedia expecting that subject X is fairly treated. The level of the article is not uniform, meaning that wikipedia is indeed non-reliable. Put in perspective, this is normal, because it's the first attempt to create World Encyclopedia, open to all cultures (more precisely, those with broadband access to Internet). The problem is how to ponder various influences, which are often opposing. Requiring reliable sources is an excellent rule of the thumb. But even this one is difficult to apply, because the editors themselves have to decide together what sources are reliable enough (for an example of such negotiations, go to [[en:Transnistria]] and browse the talk pages). Therefore, the real issue, like in most complex cases on the Administrator Noticeboards, is the ambiguity and inefficient enforcement of rules: - Ambiguity, because there is the "golden rule" WP:IGNORE. I have already been confronted with this, and it's not cool. - Inefficient enforcement, means that admins tend to apply rules only on subjects that interest them, and only to enforce their oppinion. Oh, and recently, I have seen a trend aiming at removing politically-incorrect information that may lower the interest in Wikipedia. You probably know that people come here looking for information they can't find in regular sources (i.e. regular encyclopedias). ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC

--- David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: There is a lot of quantitative progress. But with the current rules you cannot create an *encyclopedia*. To be encyclopedic, wikipedia has to invent the culture-independent encyclopedic style, which goes beyond existing nation-centric scholarship (actually, it's easier for technical fields). I see "WP:NPOV" and "WP:RS" as good ideological foundations for this work. But for now, it's like Communism and Soviet Russia: The ideology sounds good, but it is not yet here, and we don't know if it is actually feasible. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting

On 10/08/07, michael west <michawest(a)gmail.com> wrote: I was rather asking about whether the oft-encountered attitude of "this author represents a side-taking-group which is "wrong" to quote in context of this article and so should not be included" is justifiable by the Five Pillars of Gods? Or is it a disguised WP:OR involved to block the "unpleasant" kind of info, like I deem it to be? ---

Indiscriminate deletion of unsourced material to "enforce [[WP:V]]" is a popular way to game the system. I agree about systemic bias caused by requiring that sources be in English (or whatever language the Wikipedia is in). 2007/8/10, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com>om>:

The wording of the policy is ambigous, and many believe that foreign-language sources are not allowed. 2007/8/12, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>rg>:

Yes, it should be reworded. {{sofixit}} doesn't really apply to policy pages. You need a discussion leading to consensus, or any changes you make will be quickly reverted. I have even read accusations of a few admins trying to own policy pages. 2007/8/12, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

Delirium wrote: At least there is no such policy that the normal ones of us would subscribe to. But you never know when someone will write such a policy, and bury it in some obscure page that nobody watches only to pull it out several months later saying that since nobody objected to it it must be valid policy. Maybe I'm just cynical. ;-) Ec

On 10/08/07, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote: ... ... I wasn't talking about fringe (freakish) theories here, and anyway I see no definition of fringe theory on en:wp. What's troubling me now is that what you say seems to me likecontradicting the following pieces in the WP:OR: * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. * In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority. ---

On 10/08/07, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote: I perceive a contradiction here in an additional notion of some ill-defined "truthfullness" threshold, which may be freely abused -- and is abused. And once again, I'm not talking of POVs of some sects or cults. Okay, let's simplify the issue -- let's talk about whether academic views, which weren't actually challenged on their factual or interpretational basis, may be blocked from inclusion on basis of their unfamiliarity to some of the editors? ---

michael west wrote: That's a harsh criterion. Who decides whether someone is unfamiliar with the subjec. Ec

On 10/08/07, Sean <sean(a)epoptic.com> wrote: and now I am agreeing with ownership issues? my point was about familiarity with an article subject. I would never edit an article about physics because I would not know where to begin. Likewise with manga pokemon shotacom anime. My attempt at editing a page on any subject I was unfamiliar with, as Yury said before would be tantamount to vandalism. mike

michael west wrote: The "normal" editor is more likely to act in a self-limiting way on these without a need for more rules. We can still go into unfamiliar territory to fix spelling or grammar. If people who don't know what they are talking about begin to dominate articles, then our problems are worse than I might have imagined. Ec

On 10/08/07, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote: ...and if it's respectable (e.g., academic) enough, it ought to be included, balanced language and all. Which is precisely my point from the beginning. How is such policy enforcable? Say, some perceive this 'something' as a capital breach in their faith? Where to turn, then? Or just let those people "have it their way"? ---

On 10/08/07, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote: .... Yes, yes, all true, but --- how is it enforcable? ---

On 10/08/07, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote: Ah. ---

I agree with Yuri on this. The policy about negligible fringe view is used sometimes not to eliminate real nonsense, but to eliminate minority views of which one disapproves--especially pernicious when it's a group of editors owning an article and eliminating the views they personally would prefer to not exist. It's very easy to say that a small group is negligible, or that one academic isn't important, no matter how much attention he may have gotten, or that one strange medical view has not gotten more than insignificant attention, by one's own idea of what to call insignificant. I don't think people reliably make the distinction right on this when its things they care about very much; instead of relying on exceptional objectivity, it would be better to take people as they are and have the rule than any published view must be included. On 8/10/07, Yury Tarasievich <yury.tarasievich(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

Sorry, by "sources" I mean "reliable sources". An unreliable source is no different from no source.

GerardM wrote: A reliable source is one that supports one's own point of view. An unreliable source is one that supports the other person's point of view. :-( Ultimately it's up to the reader to decide whether a source is reliable. While "source" is relatively objective, and answers the question, "Where did this come from?" we can't say this about "reliable". It is in the same category of weasel words as "notable". Ec

On 17/08/07, Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote: It's an interesting issue. Right now, we don't use it in article space - at least, not routinely, though you do get some articles with little discursive essays on their sources* where this sort of thing comes out - but it gets used plenty in the editorial side of things, deciding whether or not to include discussion in a topic. Which I think is probably appropriate; it gets a bit silly to say "A quotes a fringe theory, but reliable sources B, D, and F through Q don't give it the time of day", and we should avoid duelling citations in articlespace except when actually necessary... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk * I love it when people do this. "X is a general biography, though it omits some details brought out in Y, specifically their legal career. Some further anecdotes can be found in Z, thoguh at least one of these directly contradicts X, and it is unclear which to go with. AB alludes to the incident in C..." - it can sometimes be more valuable than the article! If you know the literature well, please, give us a guide to it...