[WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

[Katefan0]

Personally, I think it's just about right that the policy state that
information without a source may be removed.  (Perhaps it should be more
pointed -- disputed information without a source).  Didn't Jimbo say as much
in one of his responses to Seigenthaler?

k


On 2/28/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/28/06, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/28/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > Slim Virgin wrote
> > >
> > > > WP:V is supported by WP:NOR, a longstanding, established policy. The
> > > > only way to show you're not doing OR is to produce a reliable
> source.
> > > > If you can't produce one, your edit may be removed, because OR is
> > > > never allowed.
> > >
> > > Yes, but this doesn't override some other things, like trying to get
> > > consensus.
> >
> > The editors on a page are not allowed to reach a consensus to include
> > original research, just as they're not allowed to decide to ditch
> > NPOV. NOR and NPOV do override consensus.
>
> You're a bit of a hardliner. Any form of analysis or recombination of
> ideas, any reformulation of content is original research to some
> degree. If there were no original research allowed at all, then the
> work on Wikipedia would not be copyrightable, because copyright
> requires some kind of creativity.
>
> The only way to truly forbid original research is to make everything
> bot-created.
>
> As someone who's been following the development of Wikipedia policy
> from the beginning, the forbidding of original research is not
> axiomatic to Wikipedia. The ultimate reason that original research is
> not allowed is that it's death to consensus editing, which is
> axiomatic to Wikipedia (note "Wiki").
>
> And to this note, the current Verifiability policy does not say "If
> you can't provide a source, your edit may be removed". It says
> "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable
> source, or it may be removed by any editor."
>
> There's no mention of asking for a source before removing content.
>
> And this policy has only been in force for a month, and people are
> only now becoming aware of it (e.g. I just learned about it) -- so
> it's no surprised that it's not being abused yet.
>
> Let's fix things before they become a problem.
>
> I trust your goals, respect your perspective, and honor your opinions.
> I think we can work together on this.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>