1. the content is significant to the purpose of the article, or NPOV would be compromised if absent; 2. the content is not published in a more reliable easily available source; 3. the author's details and the origins of the material (authenticity) is not in significant good-faith question; 4. the author's position to speak to the matter or viewpoint involved is not in significant good-faith question; 5. the material is not unduly self-serving; 6. it does not involve claims about third parties, except to the extent the author is authoritatively able to provide them. ; 7. it does not involve claims about events not having a reasonably direct relationship to the subject; 8. the article is not based entirely or almost entirely on such sources, and there is substantial third party verification of key claims. 9. The material is clearly attributed to the author and the type of medium made clear (personal website, blog, etc) for the reader's understanding.
These modifications i wording are made to address sourcing problems which have in fact occurred and require flexibility in their resolution
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:53 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Can you explain and suggest what you mean here?
FT2
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:46 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
(Snip)
Perhaps a rewording not using absolute terms might work better--NFCC has shown the disadvantages of using in an absolute sense things that need to be interpreted
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 1:31 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
IAR isn't for a regular, predictable, situation where a generic agreed solution would be better, and not for a sourcing issue or "systematic problem" like this. More and more often there is a chance (small in any given case, large overall) that important information for an article may
be
blog published, so we do have a genuine issue here.
I tend to use eventualism for filling out a page, not for correcting violations of NPOV (paramount policy).I don't expect to find myself thinking *"It's not balanced and gives undue weight but eventually we
might
get a source that fixes it"*. That's different from extra information
that
we don't need. As Charles says the problem is that RS is our filter to ensure what we do say is reliable. So the question is, that information
in
the blog - who says it's accurate? Why would a user rely upon it?
My suggested view is to look at the purpose of RS. The aim of RS is part
of
a wider goal - not passing off dud information as good, and allowing
users
to see transparently where our information comes from. We do that to an extent with self published material. So I would be okay with a solution
that
extended and built upon SELFPUB. For example:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information, without the requirement that they be published by experts in the field or reliable sources, so long as:
1. the content is salient or NPOV would be compromised if absent; 2. the content is not published in a more reliable source; 3. the author's details and the origins of the material (authenticity)
is
not in question; 4. the author's position to speak to the matter or viewpoint involved
is
not in question; 5. the material is not unduly self-serving; 6. it does not involve claims about third parties; 7. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 8. the article is not based primarily on such sources; 9. The material is clearly attributed to the author and the type of medium made clear (personal website, blog, etc) for the reader's understanding.
This is more, a natural extension and rationalization of an existing
norm,
and puts SELFPUB on a platform with other material of a like nature.
Worth
proposing?
FT2
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Sure there's something you can do: fix the definition of reliable
source.
Or, isn't this the point of IAR?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l