On 3/2/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
This entirely misses the point of the policy. We don't publish material that is "factually correct." We publish material that other reputable publications have published. If we leave it to individual editors to decide what is "factually correct," then we're into original-research territory, subjective views, people's prejudices, people's ignorance. Where our judgment comes in is in deciding which sources are the most trustworthy in the given area i.e. the most likely to be "factually correct." But we're always one step removed from that idea ourselves. The criterion for entry into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
I understand that this is the goal, but I think you're straying into idealistic territory here if we make that the *policy*.
On a practical level, how would you approach a long, stable article without a single cited source? Would you say, "this is probably totally subjective"? Would you be so easily fooled by the presence of sources, if you didn't check that they were reliable, were not cited out of context, were not selectively chosen, etc?
Regarding the relationship between NOR and V, they are inextricably linked, in that the only way to show you're not doing OR is to cite a source.
Hmm, the only way to *show* I'm not doing OR. But why would I need to show that? Because someone asked me to. Why would they ask me? Because they were contesting the validity of my contribution...
I think I'm going around in circles here...I need to have a proper look at the policy and clarify my thoughts.
Steve