In a message dated 3/30/2008 11:54:22 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
ffm(a)intserverror.com writes:
But would it be accepted as proof that there was activity on said bridge?>>
--------------
Of course not.
We could not independently verify when the picture was taken :)
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom0…)
In a message dated 3/31/2008 11:40:47 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
You are arguing that the rules should be followed. My point is that the
rules
produce an undesirable result in this case.>>
-------------------
Sure and those people who don't like what the rules say explicitly will
always cite IAR. IAR becomes the fall-back position whenever a position is
challenged. Only perhaps the most vocal upholders of IAR really believe that we
should IAR in any case with which we personally don't agree.
The most common approach, IMHO, in a case like this, is to try to gain
consensus for your position, instead of merely charging ahead with IAR'ing.
Will Johnson
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom0…)
In a message dated 3/31/2008 7:33:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
tonysidaway(a)gmail.com writes:
Yeah, basically we should not be handing hate speech, personal
attacks, etc, that we have deleted to anyone. That's republishing and
would expose us to secondary liability if there are legal problems.>>
-------------------
This is a doubtful proposition.
The concept of secondary liability has been used for a wide variety of
issues, when it's actually a very narrow concept. To wit, I have to know that
what I write is false and defamatory because my own underlying sources actually
state that it is false and defamatory, and I have to publish it regardless of
that knowledge.
That is very narrow, it would not imho apply to any of our articles.
Will
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom0…)
In a message dated 3/30/2008 6:26:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
ian.woollard(a)gmail.com writes:
Anybody wanting to verify it can ring the number. You have then
referenced the information. There may well be websites as well you can
reference.>>
---------------------
We've often dealt with this sort of research on the NOR talk page. The
consensus is, that this is not acceptable. Sources must be fixed in permanent
media. A telephone call is not such a source.
WIll Johnson
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom0…)
In a message dated 3/29/2008 4:01:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bobolozo(a)yahoo.com writes:
I've
actually been using it as explained in WP:V, not
WP:RS, as WP:V is policy and RS is not. Note that the
subject of this thread mentions WP:V)>>
-------------
That's an interesting take on things. I think you may find that, may I be
bold to state, that every major contributor to V acknowledges that RS is the
place to go to ask about Reliable Sources. Not V.
We have RSN to handle exactly the question of whether a source is a reliable
source or not. The V talk page editors in fact, redirect these sort of
questions to RSN. If you are trying to imply that RS should be sort-of
overlooked in favor of V I think you'll find the consensus is that it should not.
As to your extreme position that "totally unreliable sources" should be
glossed, I doubt anyone here would agree that anyone here is supporting that
position. By holding an extreme view, you discredit the people who would much
rather see these issues go to RSN for community discussion on *specific
sources*.
What I think we do not want, is tendentious mass-deletions of sources, which
the editors in those articles have accepted, by a person who has not
actually investigated the source, but is only characterizing it by its *type*
instead of its veracity.
Wikipedia is nothing if not grey. Which is why, on RSN, we generally divert
hypothetical discussion into specific discussions. Hypothetical discussion
of types of sources ends up too many times generating situations that we'd
wish to avoid.
Will Johnson
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom0…)
Why would you call a source, unreliable, not respected? Sure, keep to the "status quo" of lies perpetuated by the spin doctors on media, practiced liars, just at the ready to please the big dog, Spike. "What are we goin' to do now, Spike?" What ever happened to fresh, new, information pure to the truth. Seems that your editors want to tell the bigot that they are right in their beliefs, ideas of genocide, are only good for the european mind set in the ideas of what should be. There are so many with black and guilty hearts that for justification have to make sure the lies are shared by those around them, for them, to feel safe. Honour amongst thieves type thing. Safety in numbers, all huddled together in the cities, packed together so tight that blood to their brains is pinched off. Then all of a sudden, an idea, let's expand our boarders, encroach some more, advertise for more foreigners and , oh yeah, make them pledge allegiance, then if the new squatter for hire has anything to say then threaten them. Oh, it doesn't matter if a few constitutional laws are broken along the way, just chalk it up to old business, "status quo" the government won't say anything, and if the municipalities get caught breaking the law then we can always put the blame on the victims, status quo.
Why is it so difficult for the mouth pieces to realize that their rote is getting tired. Every time some newly hired squatters are brought in, then its time for the bigoted to get to work through the media, schools, to inform them that they are under threat, but don't tell them the truth of the matters.
History is repeating itself, white man wants to create much more filth, this time, with the new technologies, poisoning can be achieved at half the price and in half the time, in a more control and timed atmosphere. Here is another great idea the whiteman comes up with. Lets pollute all the natural pure, free water, just outside everyone's door, you know, the spring fed lake; Can you imagine, pure water so plentiful, it is in the form of a lake?; lets pump in the Great Lake water, which has the "government acceptable levels of toxins," into the house of the very people that pay the lions-share of the taxes, then while thy are in their high-earning years, paying all those high taxes.
All the while they are getting sick at a rate that will match their retirement, or even on the other side of their high earning curve. What do you think, no, never mind, someone hasn't given it to you yet. Well, anyway, especially since you're, as an environmental threat, made up your cllective sheep-like minds to follow the pied-piper through the village, town, city, GTA, dog-patches, you call gate-controlled, hahahahahaha, sorry, just had a mental picture of a group of white people, perhaps german, european for sure, you know, no visible means of support.
The share holders into companies that destroy the air you breath, the ground that all of our fodder comes from, sure let the land speculators lay in wait, sell to the developers, who in their turn, either build, or rent, just to get the people to stay off, all let it go to weed so the local municipality can commit treason against Canada, break more laws, blame the victim, rally all the skin heads, bikers, and just the local yokel with the less than stellar attitude then direct those people toward people the make up the multi-national country that Canada has been telling everyone. psyche. What ever works. As long as McGuinty gets his pet project goin'.
Hire the new immigrant, he/she will be payin' your health care bill, be nice to the immigrant, steal more land, give it to the new paid for immigrant, that will work their asses off, just so they won't get sent backto where-ever they come from, of course, under the eye of the government, there is $5 Billion per year involved, with the unused billions going to the province, each year, and that goes up every year with a multiplier of 1.1 billion per year. Canada wide there has only been 377 takers, which could be estimated to have cost $2 Million, thats been five years ago when that had all started, 20 Billion so far and the program has been approved to go beyond its 5 year test program. Now you know why McGuinty and Ramsey have been so preocccupied.
All of which have NOT been given approval by the Haudenosaunee Council and altimately, the people of Six Nations. Has anyone looked at the words, " consult and accommodate" lately?
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with free Messenger emoticons. Get them today!
http://g.msn.ca/ca55/207
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=223050&s=&i=&t=Asimed_Urges_Wikiped…
"ERZURUM - The Turkish Association for Fight Against Unfounded
Genocide Allegations (ASIMED) launched an e-mail campaign against
Wikipedia urging it to remove the "Semi-Protection" lock over the
article on Armenian allegations concerning the incidents of 1915."
- d.
bobolozo wrote
> If this group of wikipedia editors, which are probably
> the most experienced editors around and which as you
> pointed out contains sitting arbitrators, if this
> group believes that totally unreliable sources should
> be left in place, which is in fundamental opposition
> to the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:Verifiability,
> then we have a problem.
I doubt we have any disagreement on "totally unreliable sources". I doubt we have disagreement on "totally reliable sources" - there aren't any, in practical terms. So let's first be clear that this is all a grey area.
And let's be clear on WP:V. It merely states that factual claims should (in principle) be verifiable from reliable sources. It means that a way to challenge WP content is to assert that no reliable source exists for what is claimed. It is certainly to be applied "per fact", not "per source".
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Based on the recent "Unreliable sources, or no sources
at all?" thread, it appears that the great majority of
the members of this list have major disagreements with
Wikipedia:Verifiability.
WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia
is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this
context means that readers should be able to check
that material added to Wikipedia has already been
published by a reliable source. Editors should provide
a reliable source for quotations and for any material
that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or
it may be removed".
WP:NOR states it more succinctly. "Wikipedia does not
publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia
must be attributable to a reliable, published source".
However, the members of this list clearly do not agree
with the above. The consensus here seems to be that
unreliable sources are better than no sources at all,
and that therefore unreliable sources are acceptable,
while not preferred.
As the people here are obviously not new or uninformed
editors who merely misunderstand our policies, but
instead are likely our most experienced editors who
pay attention to and think about the meaning of our
policies, this implies that a major rewriting of our
basic policies, and especially WP:V, is in order.
If unreliable sources are acceptable, this means that
WP:V becomes a mere suggestion, not a policy. We
would still have WP:NOR, we still would need to avoid
original research, but this could be done by insuring
that our articles were based on anything written
anywhere outside of Wikipedia.
WP:V could then be replaced by a rewritten version of
Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which could be renamed
Wikipedia:Sources. We could, and of course probably
would, value higher quality sources better than lower
quality sources, and WP:S would explain how to go
about determining the relative quality of sources.
To avoid the claim that I've misinterpreted the
position of the members of this list, here are some
pertinent quotes from the recent thread:
"It is better to have a source than no source at all".
"Removing references because "WP:RS says this
reference isn't good enough" is counterproductive.
There is no deadline, and the reference will be
improved or replaced by a more reliable source one
day. Until then, it looks nice to have something
there".
"Removing sources is contrary to the spirit of the
encyclopedia and the point of our sourcing
policies.... Having information in Wikipedia that is
wholly lacking in sources is poorer information to
information that is properly sourced to a second-rate
source".
"We're better off with having sources, even if their
reliability is questionable".
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Based on the recent "Unreliable sources, or no sources
at all?" thread, it appears that the great majority of
the members of this list have major disagreements with
Wikipedia:Verifiability.
WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia
is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this
context means that readers should be able to check
that material added to Wikipedia has already been
published by a reliable source. Editors should provide
a reliable source for quotations and for any material
that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or
it may be removed".
WP:NOR states it more succinctly. "Wikipedia does not
publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia
must be attributable to a reliable, published source".
However, the members of this list clearly do not agree
with the above. The consensus here seems to be that
unreliable sources are better than no sources at all,
and that therefore unreliable sources are acceptable,
while not preferred.
As the people here are obviously not new or uninformed
editors who merely misunderstand our policies, but
instead are likely our most experienced editors who
pay attention to and think about the meaning of our
policies, this implies that a major rewriting of our
basic policies, and especially WP:V, is in order.
If unreliable sources are acceptable, this means that
WP:V becomes a mere suggestion, not a policy. We
would still have WP:NOR, we still would need to avoid
original research, but this could be done by insuring
that our articles were based on anything written
anywhere outside of Wikipedia.
WP:V could then be replaced by a rewritten version of
Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which could be renamed
Wikipedia:Sources. We could, and of course probably
would, value higher quality sources better than lower
quality sources, and WP:S would explain how to go
about determining the relative quality of sources.
To avoid the claim that I've misinterpreted the
position of the members of this list, here are some
pertinent quotes from the recent thread:
"It is better to have a source than no source at all".
"Removing references because "WP:RS says this
reference isn't good enough" is counterproductive.
There is no deadline, and the reference will be
improved or replaced by a more reliable source one
day. Until then, it looks nice to have something
there".
"Removing sources is contrary to the spirit of the
encyclopedia and the point of our sourcing
policies.... Having information in Wikipedia that is
wholly lacking in sources is poorer information to
information that is properly sourced to a second-rate
source".
"We're better off with having sources, even if their
reliability is questionable".
.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs