[WikiEN-l] Philosophical question re sources

[Ray Saintonge]

Mikkerpikker wrote:

>>Theoretically yes, except that I would say any rebuttal rather than just
>>a verifiable one.  It is NPOV because it represents the average of all
>>views that have been submitted until then.  In practical terms that
>>neutrality will cease as soon as one other person reads the article and
>>challenges its contents, unless a visiting Beta Centaurian decides to
>>get in on the act.  A challenge to the system can be as simple as a
>>polite request for sources to be cited.
>>    
>>
>So Wikipedia policies only apply once someone insists it does? I.e. I
>can keep an article about my random theory about Beta Centauri until
>someone comes to read the article and wonders "mmm, I wonder if this
>satisfies WP:V?"?
>
No policy of any sort can be applied until someone has seen the 
article.  Perhaps you can keep your article there, but only as long as 
absolutely no-one other than you sees it.  If you want it to stay a long 
time maybe you should give the article a name that will be difficult for 
anybody to find.

BTW I thought that your article was about the Alpha Centaurians.  The 
Beta Centaurian was a visitor from your neighborhood who showed up to 
testify in your favour.  Is your guy related to the Jello Monster that 
ate New York City which Bill Cosby wrote about?

>>Once a request has been made for verification, the original contributor
>>has the primary burden of proof, but that does not prevent others from
>>supplying proof if they so desire.  If the original statement is as
>>patently ridiculous as the one you hypothesize, any attempt at rebuttal
>>implies that there was something there worth rebutting, and the very act
>>of initiating a rebuttal gives credibility to the original statement.
>>    
>>
>That's quite a statement. Holocaust denial, say, is often rebutted so
>does this give those claims "credibility"?
>
If you are saying that the purpose of the holocaust was to turn its 
victimes into lime Jello, I would be inclined to question the 
credibility of your statement.  Holocaust deniers don't need to be 
rebutted; they are making the negative statement that something did NOT 
happen.  When you undertake to rebutt such a POV you are in effect 
feeding trolls.  Feeding trolls gives them more credibility than they 
deserve.

Ec