"Thomas Dalton" wrote
> For an edit to be verifiable it has to be verifiable by someone other
> than the person that made the edit. We're not talking about
> reliability of sources - it's obvious that a TV show is a perfectly
> reliable primary source - we're talking about whether someone else can
> come along and check that what the original editor said is true
> (assuming the source is right - a wikipedia article can never be more
> reliable than the sources it uses). It's not necessary that everyone
> be able to verify it, but a reasonable number of reasonably
> unconnected people should be able to, otherwise we're open to any
> number of hoaxes.
The _actual policy_ is based on the concept of a reliable published source. Now, there is a big quibble over 'reliable' and a smaller quibble over 'published'. One of the quibbles over 'published' would be to address the point about tiny numbers of hard copies, or other such issues.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"The Cunctator" wrote
> We talk about both verifiability and reliability.
True.
> You are not the end authority on Wikipedia.
True.
I think I missed your point.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Sean Barrett writes:
>David Gerard stated for the record:
>
> > I'm just amazed I'm having to explain to someone who's *in politics*
> > that learning to play nice with others is more likely to get you what
> > you want.
>
>Wandering off topic, but: I'm not really surprised.
[snip subsequent gratuitous politician-abuse]
I'm disappointed.
I do not edit Wikipedia as a politician. I assumed when it said that
people would be judged on the merits of their contributions, and that
evidence of bias in real life was no evidence of biased editing, that
this meant what it said. But no, because I happen to be involved in
politics, every edit I make is apparently viewed through a prism. I
profoundly resent Guy Chapman insinuating that I want the Tim Ireland
blog in Anne Milton's article because of political bias.
It seems when I registered a name under a variant of my initials, and
then gave a bit of biographical information on my userpage so that
people would know who I was (which some kind soul then moved into the
article space), this was a severe mistake and I should have tried to
remain anonymous. Not only was I put on the 'hive mind' hit list with
my photo and real name, I got threatened with legal action and with
political revenge when I defended an article against a vandal. So I
change my username to a different one to try to get away from this.
No, fat chance.
If it's really the situation that people who are members of political
parties have a 'Conflict of Interest' in editing political articles,
then how much more do they have in dealing with other Wikipedians with
different politics? William M. Connolley, Arbitrator Forrester and now
Guy Chapman are supporters of other parties and have not regarded
themselves as conflicted when dealing with me.
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david(a)election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd(a)westminster.gov.uk (council)
> From: Luna <lunasantin(a)gmail.com>
> For example, I doubt you'd find many
> objections to using a company's own information page, when looking
> for the
> date a company was founded; for more complex or potentially
> controversial
> information, however, getting information from third party, neutral
> sources
> is probably preferred.
Just being argumentative here... on the whole you're right but even
in such simple matters some degree of skepticism is advisable. When
the source is the company's own website, it's not a bad idea to use
qualified phrasing like "XYZ gives its founding year as so-and-so"
rather than "XYZ was founded in so-and-so."
A good example is the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, which
claims "Established 1895" and claims to be "The oldest movie company
in America:" http://www.biographcompany.com/about_us_home.html . Our
article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company , gives a more complete view
of what turns out to be a "complex and potentially controversial" story.
_University_ founding dates are tricky, because they are or were
traditionally an important point of prestige and govern the order of
march in academic processions. The University of Bologna gets to
march ahead of Oxford, for example. Therefore, universities are
strongly motivated to make a case for the earliest possible date,
however tenuous. An egregious example of this is the University of
Pennsylvania, which tries to have it both ways. Penn rather likes the
founding narrative that gives it a nonsectarian origin, closely
associated with Benjamin Franklin and his "Proposals for the
Education of Youth in Pensilvania." Unfortunately, that leads a
founding date of 1749, making it three years younger than Princeton.
So, in 1899, Penn officially adopted a position that identifies its
origins, rather tenuously, with a firebrand proto-Methodist George
Whitefield. To prove the truth of this narrative, they added a statue
of Whitefield on campus to accompany the various statues of Franklin.
This enabled them to claim a founding date of 1740, beating Princeton.
William and Mary was founded in 1693, closed in 1882, then re-opened
in 1888. Did that break the chain or not? Is the institution that
opened in 1888 really "the same" one that closed?
Corporate spinmeisters are quite fond of concocting warm and fuzzy
"origins" tales, and other stories that confirm the company's
preferred view of disputes involving lawsuits, patents, priorities,
and the like. Parker Brothers (Hasbro)'s website tells the story
(http://www.hasbro.com/monopoly/default.cfm?page=history) of how
Charles B. Darrow of Germantown, Pennsylvania invented the game in
1934. From their website, one would never guess that anything
"complex or potentially controversial" about the matter. Fortunately,
our article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_%28game%29 , does
not rely solely on Hasbro as its source.
Trust, but verify.
"Thomas Dalton" write
> > You've just answered your own question.
>
> Getting lucky is hardly a good method of verifying something... If it
> can't be verified promptly then we have a problem.
But Cunc dealt with this. 'Verifiable' is an in-principle thing. It is distinct from saying everyone can do homebrew fact-checking on anything mentioned. Verifiability on Wikipedia can't simply be a sceptics' charter: that really would be a problem.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Let's suppose we have a small country in a forgotten corner of the world.
And let's assume that a local English-language website appeared out
of nowhere, with no ads, hosted on the same server with official
government sites (even the same IP!), has obviously the same
designer and uses the same software with those government sites.
That news source could even disagree with the government on minor
point, in order to look independent and reliable. The only references
in the mainstream press (e.g. The Economist) call it an "astroturfing"
attempt of the government.
Would you call this source "reliable", worthy to be used as for
references in Wikipedia?
And if there's a wikipedian who really loves this source, who agrees
almost 100% to it and adds it to dozens of articles, reverting any
attempt to remove it, what should we do?
"David Gerard" wrote
> On 08/12/06, david(a)election.demon.co.uk
> > Let me ask a single simple question, and anyone else feel free to
> > pitch in with the answer.
> > Suppose I do the "work" suggested above, what good will it do me?
> You will become less likely to alienate others with your behaviour
> when in fact correct, and your efforts are more likely to stay with
> less effort?
Can't be that simple. Can we award a plastic halo?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Guy Chapman writes:
>It really does not matter at all what your interpretation is of the
>content outcome when you are blocked, the fact that you *were*
>blocked, several times, for revert warring and other disruptive
>behaviour, is an indication that your manner of interaction with
>others needs work, and that you have, as yet, failed to accept that
>fact.
Let me ask a single simple question, and anyone else feel free to
pitch in with the answer.
Suppose I do the "work" suggested above, what good will it do me?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote
> What I believe is that if one has a potential conflict of interest
> then (a) it should be declared and (b) one should be prepared to leave
> the last word to others.
There is no official line on declaring anything, of course. No way Wikipedia could ever advise anyone to post personal information on the Internet. Your point (b), naturally, could be a deterrent to doing (a).
I will say that the general run of ArbCom cases involving various kinds of COI is not very encouraging to those who try to edit on through. I wouldn't say we rule out conflicted editors being good editors, at all, though.
You do have to be that extra bit level-headed to cope with adversarial or partisan behaviour in others, when you yourself are that bit too close to the topic. We are just closing a case that illustrates this very well. (This implicitly answers 'what is it that one can actually do about conflict of interest on the site?'; it is the same as for clever rather than crude POV pushing - you'd better stay out of court, and compromise.)
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Guy Chapman writes:
>What I said was that *you are a party political activist editing
>articles on politicians, and frequently in a way which causes conflict
>with other editors*. That does not imply that you are either right or
>wrong, only that your style of editing, combined with your known
>interests and choice of articles, causes conflict.
I think disingenuousness is unbecoming, Guy, and your meaning was quite
plain. The point you have been making has not been about "right or
wrong" but about your insinuations, for which you have been unable to
produce any actual evidence, that I am advancing my own POV. You refer
to "my known interests" when what you mean is the POV you perceive me as
having. However, your perceptions have been and are wrong. That is
very objectionable. I doubt you or anybody else can accurately discern my
opinions from reading my edits.
>See also above, where your use of a deliberately misleading edit
>summary is used to make accusations against others.
No it isn't. I was just having a light-hearted joke with the edit
summary (no-one could write a long article about 338,171), and commenting
that it would be no bad thing if speedy patrollers should look into
things a bit more before jumping to delete. That's an implicit criticism
but I wouldn't go further than that. It's a mistake I have made myself
once (Catpiano).
>Nor do you appear to know who your friends are - I was against any
>sanction when you edited Peter Tatchell in defiance of your ArbCom
>ban, for example, and I unblocked you as soon as you undertook to stop
>the edit war on this article.
Given all you have said about me, you have a strange definition of
'friend'.
In every case where I have been blocked, the situation has been resolved
in favour of the position I was advocating. If I come across as forceful
in making a case, this is because I believe the case has great force.
I am also undeterred by the prospect of being blocked. You can actually
change that approach in an instant if you want to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .