On 2/28/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/28/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/27/06, The Cunctator
<cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What I'm interested in is the behavior that
the new policy permits and
encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's
contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.
Agreed. This is policy wording driven through on the basis of
controversial, edit-warred articles.
I just wish we'd go back to the pre-February 2006 version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid…
Or even take a look at some old-school versions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid…
What a huge difference in tone. Talk about the creep of formalism and distrust.
Actually, I think MyRedDice's earliest version is about right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid…
The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete, accurate encyclopedia.
We can't be sure of our accuracy if we include information which
cannot be verified.
Therefore, include nothing that you cannot verify.
If you try to verify some information in an article, and cannot, raise
the problem on the talk page (you may wish to temporarilly remove the
information). Someone else may have additional resources and be able
to verify it.
You should make it easy for people to verify your information by
citing your sources. They don't have to be online - books, newspapers,
etc - all good.
Verifiability is one problem with articles on obscure subjects. By
concentrating onf verifiable subjects, we also concentrate on
important subjects.