In a message dated 4/9/2008 9:50:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
WJhonson(a)aol.com writes:
And what the subject claims about a statement of fact, sourced from a
reliable source, is not material. Never was, never will be.>>
----------------------
That was a little strong, let me rephrase.
A BLP subject does not have the right to expunge any material that other
editors deem has come from a reliable source. If you show your boobs on video
while you were drunk once, guess what? You did it, now face the consequences
:)
Will Johnson
**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)
We researched this important matter for "How Wikipedia Works". Here's a trailer in advance (GFDL). The best answer was of course on the site, if you knew where to look.
"Sofixit is enshrined in a template which can be used in answer to complaints about content or other problems-- {{sofixit}}. You need this concept to get the inwardness of a Wikipedian light bulb joke:
Q: How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Zero. Just tag the light bulb as {{unscrewed}} and let someone else worry about it.
A little sour, perhaps, but the point will ring true in other voluntary projects. More of the same is at [[User:Bibliomaniac15/How many Wikipedians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?]]. "
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Delirium wrote
> The current
> approach tends to make it much easier for the class of people who
> already run blogs to get their objections noted than the class of people
> who don't, which seems weird.
The current approach makes participation in Wikipedia much easier for those who have Internet connections. Which isn't everyone.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Delirium wrote
>We consider notable people's blogs reliable sources on their
> personal views, and it seems like saying "just register your
> disagreement here and we'll cite it" isn't any worse than the more
> roundabout "okay, start a blog, then post your disagreement there, and
> then we'll cite that".
But no better, really. In a general Internet-philosophical way, blogs = opinion dumps; and there doesn't seem to be an adequate reason to duplicate that functionality?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
In a message dated 4/10/2008 2:02:06 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
woonpton(a)fastmail.fm writes:
Wikipedia values verifiability even at the expense of accuracy or
credibility.>>
--------------------
We don't.
We value, verifiability FROM reliable sources.
It's a teeter-totter (spelling?).
If you verify something from an unreliable source, that is not Wikipoorific.
If you don't verify something even though it has a source, that is not
Wikipoorific either.
These things are RESOLVED on the individual articles to which they relate.
Hypothetical situations don't really help resolve anything except perhaps in
your own mind.
Will Johnson
**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)
In a message dated 4/10/2008 2:15:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
And even the emoticon doesn't help much in one's
halting interaction with the occasional online stranger who is, in
fact, gravely sociopathic.>>
--------------------------------------------
That's it, I'm putting you *on report* now David.
Wait... are we only discussing "gravely" sociopathic online strangers?
I guess I'm off the hook.
Will Johnson
**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)
In a message dated 4/10/2008 1:53:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
morven(a)gmail.com writes:
Most times the original source is bad, even if it has been reprinted
in superficially better quality publications without sufficient fact
checking.>>
---------------------
Which situation, we cannot determine.
There is no reasonable way for us, as re-reporters, to verify whether a
generally-held reliable source has done "sufficient fact-checking" or not. Every
paper prints corrections, and every edition of every print journal or book
has corrections. Some that completely invert the meaning.
Will Johnson
**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)
I've been working on figuring out the history of this bit of wording,
since it's, on the surface, transparently untrue (we, in fact, do want
to provide truth as well - not necessarily big-T absolute truth, but
certainly the little-t truth that is a synonym for "accuracy" - i.e.
the word as normal people use it).
Originally, WP: V explicitly called for accuracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=123…
. The term was removed in a language tweak in 2005. The phrase
"verifiability, not truth" came from a draft revision of WP:NOR in
December of 2004.
As far as I can tell, there has *never* been a consensus discussion of
the phrasing "verifiability, not truth," nor was there a discussion
about removing the statement that Wikipedia strives to be accurate
from WP:V. These changes were inserted, albeit years ago, without
discussion, and long-standing principles were pushed to the side and
minimized in favor of increasingly context-free restatements of the
changes. But I cannot find *any* evidence that the position "accuracy
is not a primary goal of Wikipedia" has ever garnered consensus.
Is anyone aware of a discussion to this end that I am not? Is there
actually a point where we clearly and deliberately decided that the
goal of Wikipedia is not accuracy?
-Phil
In a message dated 4/7/2008 12:03:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
There are topics
that we unquestionably should have articles about that one cannot
write a general overview of without relying on that oral tradition. >>
---------------
Actually, imho, we should not.
If by oral tradition you mean "the Sun is hot" doesn't need a source I would
agree.
If by oral tradition you mean "James Joyce was the best writer ever" doesn't
need a source, I have to disagree.
Will Johnson
**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)