On 3/1/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
There is an issue here about 'ephemera',
certainly. Without splitting hairs
too much, it is clear that websites are ephemeral (updates are out of our
control), and even films are released in different cuts, making assertions a
bit harder than might seem.
Sure, and if that happens, you can reevaluate the information. It
comes down to: Do you believe the information on the page to be true?
Take the example of a fictional pokemon character, Poopy. Say that the
statement is made, "Poopy's character made its debut in episode 13 of
series 6 with the line 'I love cheese'". This may not have been
published in a reliable publication. You may not know whether it's
true or not. And you could probably, without too much effort, track
down series 6 and discover whether the line is correct or not (if not
whether that was indeed the character's debut).
But: Do you think for an instant that the thousands of pokemon fans
that pass through Wikipedia would let that information sit there if it
wasn't?
Bear in mind that there are the versions we want to
present to those who
have been editing for three days; and the versions that will make more sense
to those who have been editing at least three months and seen some
contentious matters come up. It is highly desirable that no one has to
unlearn anything, in passing from the first to the second. So it is fine to
say 'don't include your own slant in the article': that doesn't change.
It
is not 'upwardly compatible' to say 'you may cut unsourced claims', while
it
is OK to say 'please back up your edits with good sources'.
Can't we just keep it simple and direct? Anyway I'll have a look at
this latest version that has been proposed and see how it addresses
the problem.
Steve