Saw this when creating a redirect. Aren't we a little early for April Fool's?
Steve
On 1/26/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Saw this when creating a redirect. Aren't we a little early for April Fool's?
Welcome to the shiny new perfect Wikipedia.
Lol.
On 1/27/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/26/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Saw this when creating a redirect. Aren't we a little early for April Fool's?
Welcome to the shiny new perfect Wikipedia.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, we could say "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources might be deleted." But that's no incentive to actually cite sources. It's sad to see it makes no difference whatsoever.
Mgm
On 1/26/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Lol.
On 1/27/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/26/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Saw this when creating a redirect. Aren't we a little early for April
Fool's?
Welcome to the shiny new perfect Wikipedia.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/27/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Well, we could say "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources might be deleted." But that's no incentive to actually cite sources. It's sad to see it makes no difference whatsoever.
Is this what we've come to? Being honest with our contributors doesn't work, so we attempt to scare them with hollow threats? FFS.
Steve
On 1/26/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/27/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Well, we could say "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources might be deleted." But that's no incentive to actually cite sources. It's sad to see it makes no difference whatsoever.
Is this what we've come to? Being honest with our contributors doesn't work, so we attempt to scare them with hollow threats? FFS.
Whack someone over the head with [[WP:BITE]] ?
--- George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/26/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Is this what we've come to? Being honest with our
contributors doesn't
work, so we attempt to scare them with hollow threats?
FFS.
Whack someone over the head with [[WP:BITE]] ?
Why not just start applying the policy? Set a time limit. No RS, delete. Maybe be nice and provide 1 last extended deletion notice: "This article will be deleted in x days if no RS are cited." That is, if it hasn't already been uncited for several months.
It seems like there has been an extended and unstated policy to create essentially article shells simply to get the article count up and increase Wikipedia's popularity. WP has a high enough count and popularity. Why not start actually focusing on content detail and enforcing the long standing yet rarely applied policies?
The alternative seems to be to continue to be the rear end of jokes about knowledge by consensus and hearsay like that on the 1/24 Colbert Report until WP loses what trust it has.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
Cheney Shill wrote:
Why not just start applying the policy? Set a time limit. No RS, delete.
...
It seems like there has been an extended and unstated policy to create essentially article shells simply to get the article count up and increase Wikipedia's popularity.
I've created my share of stubs and this is not even remotely the reason why. In most cases it's because I went looking for an article, didn't find it, and wanted to get it started so that hopefully others would add more detail. Why should I care about Wikipedia's gross article count?
Assume good faith, please.
WP has a high enough count and popularity. Why not start actually focusing on content detail and enforcing the long standing yet rarely applied policies?
[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] is not policy.
The alternative seems to be to continue to be the rear end of jokes about knowledge by consensus and hearsay like that on the 1/24 Colbert Report until WP loses what trust it has.
That's a false dilemma. While it's true that there are plenty of jokes out there about it, there's also a lot of respect and admiration as well. I don't see any big risk in continuing as we have been.
--- Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
Why not just start applying the policy? Set a time
limit.
No RS, delete.
...
It seems like there has been an extended and unstated policy to create essentially article shells simply to
get
the article count up and increase Wikipedia's
popularity.
I've created my share of stubs and this is not even remotely the reason why. In most cases it's because I went looking for an article, didn't find it, and wanted to get it started so that hopefully others would add more detail. Why should I care about Wikipedia's gross article count?
Assume good faith, please.
OK. AGF. The stubs went nowhere. It's not your falt. It may have even scared others away. You tried, nothing happened. Time to let it go and AGF upon those deleting it.
WP has a high enough count and popularity. Why not
start
actually focusing on content detail and enforcing the
long
standing yet rarely applied policies?
[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] is not policy.
Problem is, under the scenario given, othing is verifiable supports the articles. That makes it a violation of verifiablity, regardless of what guidelines you prefer, but WP:V does just happens to mention reliable sources in its 1st sentence. It's also a violation of original research because there's nothing to show otherwise. Let's not forget NPOV, which states at the very top "... significant views that have been published by a reliable source."
There's nothing stated in any policy or guideline about giving stubs long-term policy exception status.
of jokes about knowledge by consensus and hearsay like
that
on the 1/24 Colbert Report until WP loses what trust it has.
That's a false dilemma.
It's original research, I'll grant you that. Nonetheless, the jokes and increased publicity and stature thereof are verifiable.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Cheney Shill wrote:
--- Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I've created my share of stubs and this is not even remotely the reason why. In most cases it's because I went looking for an article, didn't find it, and wanted to get it started so that hopefully others would add more detail. Why should I care about Wikipedia's gross article count?
Assume good faith, please.
OK. AGF. The stubs went nowhere. It's not your falt. It may have even scared others away. You tried, nothing happened. Time to let it go and AGF upon those deleting it.
Er, wha? I never said the stubs went nowhere and I have no idea how you derived that from what I wrote. It's possible some of the things I started as stubs are still stubs but plenty of them have grown into full articles since then.
I just hit random page a few times and checked the article histories of all the non-stub articles I came across, and every single one of them started out as a stub in their first few edits. This appears to be a common pattern, try it out yourself.
WP has a high enough count and popularity. Why not
start
actually focusing on content detail and enforcing the
long
standing yet rarely applied policies?
[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] is not policy.
Problem is, under the scenario given, othing is verifiable supports the articles. That makes it a violation of verifiablity, regardless of what guidelines you prefer, but WP:V does just happens to mention reliable sources in its 1st sentence.
And the very next sentence after that is "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." This reduces the scope of the policy's impact rather significantly.
of jokes about knowledge by consensus and hearsay like
that
on the 1/24 Colbert Report until WP loses what trust it has.
That's a false dilemma.
It's original research, I'll grant you that. Nonetheless, the jokes and increased publicity and stature thereof are verifiable.
No, it's worse than original research, it's a logical fallacy. You stated that there were only two options:
1) Start deleting anything that doesn't have "reliable sources" 2) Be the butt of jokes and lose our credibility
It's simply not true that those are the only options, there are plenty of others.
Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
WP has a high enough count and popularity. Why not
start
actually focusing on content detail and enforcing the
long
standing yet rarely applied policies?
Problem is, under the scenario given, nothing verifiable supports the articles. That makes it a violation of verifiablity, regardless of what guidelines you prefer,
but
WP:V does just happens to mention reliable sources in its 1st sentence.
And the very next sentence after that is "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." This reduces the scope of the policy's impact rather significantly.
How does that reduce the scope of the policy? That's now 3 sources, 2 policies (V & NPOV) and a guideline, that state produce reliable sources or expect the material to be deleted. That's reinforcement, not reduction.
The question is how long should articles without reliable sources be allowed to remain. Should they be allowed to linger indefinitely?
No, it's worse than original research, it's a logical fallacy. You stated that there were only two options:
I agree there are more options and limiting it to 2 is a fallacy. Nonetheless, Wikipedia jokes and the rising publicity and stature thereof are verifiable. How you reason with it is up to you. One could reason that it makes competing with Wikipedia easier and decreases the liklihood that WP will be widely accepted as a reliable source for citations.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
Cheney Shill schreef:
Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And the very next sentence after that is "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." This reduces the scope of the policy's impact rather significantly.
How does that reduce the scope of the policy?
Because it says there is only a problem if the material is doubtful. An unsourced statement that is not challenged and not likely to be challenged -- and that is not libelous if untrue, I should add -- is not to be removed, according to WP:V.
The question is how long should articles without reliable sources be allowed to remain. Should they be allowed to linger indefinitely?
Yes. Unless they have problems that can only be solved by deletion.
Eugene
Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Cheney Shill schreef:
Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And the very next sentence after that is "Editors
should
provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or
likely
to be challenged, or it may be removed." This reduces the
scope
of the policy's impact rather significantly.
How does that reduce the scope of the policy?
Because it says there is only a problem if the material is doubtful. An unsourced statement that is not challenged and not likely to be challenged -- and that is not libelous if untrue, I should add -- is not to be removed, according to WP:V.
That makes it highly subjective. What determines if it is doubtful or or likely to be challenged? To interpret WP:V this way is basically to say its not policy. There's no point for it, not to mention it violates NPOV, so now we have a pointless policy that violates NPOV. Submit whatever you like without sources. It gets to stay if not challenged. And if the challenge gets to stay if it's not challeneged. So Wikipedia is a collection of unsourced opinions and unsourced counter challenges. Long live the edit wars.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
Cheney Shill schreef:
Because it says there is only a problem if the material is doubtful. An unsourced statement that is not challenged and not likely to be challenged -- and that is not libelous if untrue, I should add -- is not to be removed, according to WP:V.
That makes it highly subjective.
Subjective, yes. Don't know about highly subjective; as soon as there is any significant difference of opinion if something should be sourced, it is likely to be challenged.
What determines if it is doubtful or or likely to be challenged?
Common sense. Most people have this, or it would not be common.
Submit whatever you like without sources. It gets to stay if not challenged. And if the challenge gets to stay if it's not challeneged.
No, as soon as there is a challenge, the statement (and the counter-statement) should be sourced. That's what WP:V says: challenged information should be sourced.
So Wikipedia is a collection of unsourced opinions and unsourced counter challenges. Long live the edit wars.
Ehm, no. The point is, that 90% of the information on wikipedia is unsourced but not the subject of edit wars. It is this information that I'm talking about.
Eugene
Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
What determines if it is doubtful or or likely to be challenged?
Common sense. Most people have this, or it would not be common.
When http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense is no longer unreferenced and has reliable sources, I'll consider agreeing with that.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
Cheney Shill schreef:
Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Common sense. Most people have this, or it would not be common.
When http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense is no longer unreferenced and has reliable sources, I'll consider agreeing with that.
As long as there are no doubts about the validity of the contents of the page, I don't see what extra value sourcing would have.
Eugene
Cheney Shill wrote:
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Cheney Shill schreef:
Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And the very next sentence after that is "Editors should
provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely
to be challenged, or it may be removed." This reduces the scope
of the policy's impact rather significantly.
How does that reduce the scope of the policy?
Because it says there is only a problem if the material is doubtful. An unsourced statement that is not challenged and not likely to be challenged -- and that is not libelous if untrue, I should add -- is not to be removed, according to WP:V.
That makes it highly subjective. What determines if it is doubtful or or likely to be challenged? To interpret WP:V this way is basically to say its not policy. There's no point for it, not to mention it violates NPOV, so now we have a pointless policy that violates NPOV. Submit whatever you like without sources. It gets to stay if not challenged. And if the challenge gets to stay if it's not challeneged. So Wikipedia is a collection of unsourced opinions and unsourced counter challenges. Long live the edit wars.
I subscribe to the notion that _every_ first draft article follows NPOV. It is the product of one editor, and none of its information has been challenged. It's all downhill from there. The half life of this NPOV could be measured as the time between the original and second edit. The NPOV of a particularly contentious subject will have a very short half-life. We all, at least in theory, strive to follow NPOV, but we may not have all the information to put the opposing view correctly, if we even know it exists. It is perfecly reasonable to wait until proponents of an alternative view can put that forward; they can do it so much better. With good faith on both sides, a consensus can be achieved. It only becomes a series of challenges and counter-challenges when the opposing viewholders consider being right more important than finding common ground.
Ec
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I subscribe to the notion that _every_ first draft article follows NPOV.
That has at least 7 problems: 1. It's not policy or guideline to assume first drafts meet policy. 2. By assuming first drafts meet policy, one gives it an advantage over all future edits, regardless of how much better those edits may be. 3. It violates applying AGF equally among all writers' edits. 4. It violates the basic premise of Wikipedia that the more contributors to an article, the better. Otherwise, why put it on the Internet and leave it open to anyone to edit? 5. Psychologically, in terms of faulty decision making, it's an application of the primacy effect, which I presume, given the recent discussion of mental disorders here, requires no further explanation. 6. It applies a personal standard that interferes with the policy expressed in the the subject. 7. It promotes the creation of new articles on the same subject instead of adjusting the existing article, thus creating redundant articles.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
on 1/28/07 11:38 PM, Cheney Shill at halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
- Psychologically, in terms of faulty decision making,
it's an application of the primacy effect, which I presume, given the recent discussion of mental disorders here, requires no further explanation.
By all means, do explain further.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 1/28/07 11:38 PM, Cheney Shill at halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
- Psychologically, in terms of faulty decision
making,
it's an application of the primacy effect, which I
presume,
given the recent discussion of mental disorders here, requires no further explanation.
By all means, do explain further.
Is this not sufficiently explanatory or reliable? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_effect
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
on 1/29/07 10:13 AM, Cheney Shill at halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
Is this not sufficiently explanatory or reliable? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_effect
It could use some work. But my question is: What do you make of it?
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 1/29/07 10:13 AM, Cheney Shill at halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
Is this not sufficiently explanatory or reliable? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_effect
It could use some work. But my question is: What do you make of it?
The real irony here is that a person who has put himself forth as a strong advocate for reliable sourcing is relying on an article that is completely lacking in such sources to make his point. :'(
Ec
on 1/29/07 5:12 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
on 1/29/07 10:13 AM, Cheney Shill at halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
Is this not sufficiently explanatory or reliable? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_effect
It could use some work. But my question is: What do you make of it?
The real irony here is that a person who has put himself forth as a strong advocate for reliable sourcing is relying on an article that is completely lacking in such sources to make his point. :'(
Ec
Yes. And, when I asked him to expand on what he meant by a statement, he sent me a link to an encyclopedia Article (and not a very good one at that).
I still haven't received a direct response. Oh well
Marc
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 1/29/07 10:13 AM, Cheney Shill at
Is this not sufficiently explanatory or reliable? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_effect
It could use some work. But my question is: What do you
make of it?
The real irony here is that a person who has put himself forth as a strong advocate for reliable sourcing is relying on an article that is completely lacking in such sources to make his point. :'(
To understand the irony, one must understand Marc Riddell requested I explain the primacy effect instead of relying on Wikipedia: "By all means, do explain further."
Why would I bother to adjust what I know and base it upon an unsourced article written by people of unknown expertise? Apparently the same question occurred to Marc and he decided to request the view of someone that can actually apply it. Maybe if I get unblocked one of these days, I'll consider working on the article. Apparently irony could use a little work too.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
How does that reduce the scope of the policy?
Because it says there is only a problem if the material is doubtful. An unsourced statement that is not challenged and not likely to be challenged -- and that is not libelous if untrue, I should add -- is not to be removed, according to WP:V.
Oh, I wish.
This still is subject to people who go around challenging random articles, which I think is an abuse of the process. It really ought to say "sincerely challenged", but it doesn't...
Cheney Shill wrote:
How does that reduce the scope of the policy? That's now 3 sources, 2 policies (V & NPOV) and a guideline, that state produce reliable sources or expect the material to be deleted. That's reinforcement, not reduction.
The question is how long should articles without reliable sources be allowed to remain. Should they be allowed to linger indefinitely?
In practice, yes, if: 1) The information looks likely to be correct; and 2) Even if it isn't, it doesn't matter all that much (not potentially libelous, etc.); and 3) It looks likely that a source can be procured in the future.
Sometimes an article that's lingered for months with an unreferenced banner will be proposed for deletion, since that's taken as evidence against #3. But there are plenty of things that linger unreferenced, even though everyone knows they're basically correct---and you can even roughly verify them by doing some google searches---because nobody's taken the time to edit them into a properly referenced article. A bunch of stubs of locations and figures of classical antiquity fit this description, for example.
I don't really see much harm to leaving them around, or much benefit to deleting them in such cases, since they do provide information that with some fairly high probability is correct, and in any case provide a good base for a future editor to improve the article on. They should be prominently tagged with the "unreferenced" banner, of course, so our readers know that they aren't considered good/reliable articles yet.
-Mark
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
How does that reduce the scope of the policy? That's
now 3
sources, 2 policies (V & NPOV) and a guideline, that
state
produce reliable sources or expect the material to be deleted. That's reinforcement, not reduction.
The question is how long should articles without
reliable
sources be allowed to remain. Should they be allowed to linger indefinitely?
In practice, yes, if:
- The information looks likely to be correct; and
Problem is that's subjective. How does one determine what is or is not likely?
- Even if it isn't, it doesn't matter all that much (not
potentially libelous, etc.); and
So, now we have the same subjectivity as 1) along with a test: If it causes legal problems, delete.
- It looks likely that a source can be procured in the
future.
Back to subjectivity. How does one determine whether a source is likely?
Sometimes an article that's lingered for months with an unreferenced banner will be proposed for deletion, since that's taken as evidence against #3. But there are plenty of things that linger unreferenced, even though everyone knows they're basically correct---and you can even roughly verify them by doing some google searches---because nobody's taken the time to edit them into a properly referenced article. A bunch of stubs of locations and figures of classical antiquity fit this
So then it is no problem to put a warning that it will be deleted in x days if no sources are added. For the articles that have easily found sources, these can be readily found and added and the deletion warning will be removed and the article remains. Those that still fail to produce sources are deleted.
should be prominently tagged with the "unreferenced" banner, of course, so our readers know that they aren't considered good/reliable articles yet.
An indefinite banner stating the article is unreferenced, i.e., citations needed, like {{fact}}. If the banner also says, as you say, "this is not conisdered a good/reliable article yet", then sure. As it is, it requires the reader to decide whether or not the lack of sources is significant. Considering that signifiant, verifiable sources is policy, it seems that the banner needs to be more explicit, i.e., honest, in stating that the lack thereof makes this article highly unreliable.
At this point, there seem to be 2 reasonable alternatives: 1) Create a time limited deletion warning permitting deletion upon expiration without reliable sources. 2) Create an indefinite banner that clearly states that the article/section is in a highly unreliable state should not regarded as accurate.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
Cheney Shill wrote:
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
In practice, yes, if:
- The information looks likely to be correct; and
Problem is that's subjective. How does one determine what is or is not likely?
Subjectivity is not inherently a problem, and for a project like this it's bound to happen at some point. In this case one determines whether it's likely based on whether anyone actually challenges it. If nobody challenges a bit of information then either everyone thinks it's likely to be correct (that's good) or nobody has noticed it (not so good, but also makes the issue not terribly urgent). Or perhaps nobody who's read it feels qualified to judge it, but a citation probably wouldn't help in that sort of situation.
- Even if it isn't, it doesn't matter all that much (not
potentially libelous, etc.); and
So, now we have the same subjectivity as 1) along with a test: If it causes legal problems, delete.
If nobody has a problem with it then there's no problem with leaving it in. Subjective but still quite useful.
- It looks likely that a source can be procured in the
future.
Back to subjectivity. How does one determine whether a source is likely?
One just thinks it when one reads the information. eg., "The article says Mr. Foo died in 1975. I don't have access to a library to check right now but he was pretty famous so there's probably obituaries in the newspapers if nothing else." That's all that's needed, one doesn't have to actually look it up.
If someone comes along who _doesn't_ think a source can be procured then he can go ahead and challenge it, and others can then dig up a source or otherwise try to convince him that one exists. Just like with the first point, above.
Sometimes an article that's lingered for months with an unreferenced banner will be proposed for deletion, since that's taken as evidence against #3. But there are plenty of things that linger unreferenced, even though everyone knows they're basically correct---and you can even roughly verify them by doing some google searches---because nobody's taken the time to edit them into a properly referenced article. A bunch of stubs of locations and figures of classical antiquity fit this
So then it is no problem to put a warning that it will be deleted in x days if no sources are added.
You're very good at reaching conclusions based on comments that don't seem to remotely support them, I have no idea how you got this from what Delirium wrote. :)
The problem I see with this sort of hard-and-fast deadline is that there's no pressing need for it but a very real chance that it's going to remove stuff that could well have been improved instead if it had been allowed to sit around longer. The sorts of stubs Delirium mentioned as an example probably aren't on many watchlists or the focus of many people's academic interests, so even if the sources are out there it's going to be hard to force people to dig them up in only X days. It's hard to "force" anyone to do anything on Wikipedia, it's a volunteer effort after all.
At this point, there seem to be 2 reasonable alternatives:
- Create a time limited deletion warning permitting
deletion upon expiration without reliable sources. 2) Create an indefinite banner that clearly states that the article/section is in a highly unreliable state should not regarded as accurate.
I've got no problem with the banner approach, though I think "highly" might be overstating the issue.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
At this point, there seem to be 2 reasonable alternatives:
- Create a time limited deletion warning permitting
deletion upon expiration without reliable sources. 2) Create an indefinite banner that clearly states that the article/section is in a highly unreliable state should not regarded as accurate.
I've got no problem with the banner approach, though I think "highly" might be overstating the issue.
I agree with this and with the same reservation. "May be unreliable" would say enough, and leaves open the possibility that there may be nothing wrong with the article at all, save the lack of sources.
Ec
Cheney Shill wrote:
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
In practice, yes, if:
- The information looks likely to be correct; and
Problem is that's subjective. How does one determine what is or is not likely?
Subjectivity is not inherently a problem, and for a project like this it's bound to happen at some point. In this case one determines whether it's likely based on whether anyone actually challenges it. If nobody challenges a bit of information then either everyone thinks it's likely to be correct (that's good) or nobody has noticed it (not so good, but also makes the issue not terribly urgent). Or perhaps nobody who's read it feels qualified to judge it, but a citation probably wouldn't help in that sort of situation.
- Even if it isn't, it doesn't matter all that much (not
potentially libelous, etc.); and
So, now we have the same subjectivity as 1) along with a test: If it causes legal problems, delete.
If nobody has a problem with it then there's no problem with leaving it in. Subjective but still quite useful.
- It looks likely that a source can be procured in the
future.
Back to subjectivity. How does one determine whether a source is likely?
One just thinks it when one reads the information. eg., "The article says Mr. Foo died in 1975. I don't have access to a library to check right now but he was pretty famous so there's probably obituaries in the newspapers if nothing else." That's all that's needed, one doesn't have to actually look it up.
If someone comes along who _doesn't_ think a source can be procured then he can go ahead and challenge it, and others can then dig up a source or otherwise try to convince him that one exists. Just like with the first point, above.
Sometimes an article that's lingered for months with an unreferenced banner will be proposed for deletion, since that's taken as evidence against #3. But there are plenty of things that linger unreferenced, even though everyone knows they're basically correct---and you can even roughly verify them by doing some google searches---because nobody's taken the time to edit them into a properly referenced article. A bunch of stubs of locations and figures of classical antiquity fit this
So then it is no problem to put a warning that it will be deleted in x days if no sources are added.
You're very good at reaching conclusions based on comments that don't seem to support them, I have no idea how you got this from what Delirium wrote. :)
The problem I see with this sort of hard-and-fast deadline is that there's no pressing need for it but a very real chance that it's going to remove stuff that could well have been improved instead if it had been allowed to sit around longer. The sorts of stubs Delirium mentioned as an example probably aren't on many watchlists or the focus of many people's academic interests, so even if the sources are out there it's going to be hard to force people to dig them up in only X days. It's hard to "force" anyone to do anything on Wikipedia, it's a volunteer effort after all.
At this point, there seem to be 2 reasonable alternatives:
- Create a time limited deletion warning permitting
deletion upon expiration without reliable sources. 2) Create an indefinite banner that clearly states that the article/section is in a highly unreliable state should not regarded as accurate.
I've got no problem with the banner approach, though I think "highly" might be overstating the issue.
Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
In practice, yes, if:
- The information looks likely to be correct; and
Problem is that's subjective. How does one determine
what
is or is not likely?
Subjectivity is not inherently a problem, and for a
2 more problems. Thats subjective and and its not policy.
project like this it's bound to happen at some point. In this case one
At some point, we all die, so why wait? Im not following your logic.
determines whether it's likely based on whether anyone actually challenges it. If nobody challenges a bit of information then either everyone thinks it's likely to be correct (that's good) or nobody has noticed it (not so good, but also makes the issue not terribly urgent). Or perhaps
Unless lots of people have noticed via external searching but no one has changed it and simply accepted it because its in an encyclopedia and they AGF. Have you heard of this new fangled concept called a false dilemma? I just heard about it. Something to do with logic.
nobody who's read it feels qualified to judge it, but a citation probably wouldn't help in that sort of situation.
Or somebody not only felt qualified, but did judge, changed it annonymously, assumed good faith, never bothered to check back on it to challenge reversions, only to have it changed back by the originator, a troll, vandal, an innocent admin, etc. This false dilemma concept sure puts things in perspective.
- Even if it isn't, it doesn't matter all that much
(not
potentially libelous, etc.); and
So, now we have the same subjectivity as 1) along with
a
test: If it causes legal problems, delete.
If nobody has a problem with it then there's no problem with leaving it in. Subjective but still quite useful.
If? And useful according to who? Anyone whos content with fake information? Spam? Pure nonsense? Having a page in a something that calls itself an encyclopedia say so? How is it useful?
- It looks likely that a source can be procured in
the
future.
Back to subjectivity. How does one determine whether a source is likely?
One just thinks it when one reads the information. eg., "The article says Mr. Foo died in 1975. I don't have access to a library to check right now but he was pretty famous so there's probably obituaries in the newspapers if nothing else." That's all that's needed, one doesn't have to actually look it up.
Actually, one does "have to" look it up. Which brings us back to the point of this dicussion. #1 policy NPOV states: "All [not some, not just those you decide are likely] Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must [as in "have to", this is not optional] be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source."
Also note the following in the NPOV policy: "absolute and non-negotiable."
You may consider Foo famous, but 99.7% of the world may not know who he is or where to find any information on him. That makes it OR until one provides reliable sources that show otherwise.
From the NPOV tutorial:
You must also ensure that your assertions about alternative uses are both significant and verifiable, using appropriate attribution and citation.
Now, applying this new technology of logic instead of that common sense thing, if something must have something, yet doesnt, should it be allowed to remain? If so, how long? If indefinite (infinite), then thats the same as saying that articles do not require NPOV. Any article can remain as long as one likes regardless of what NPOV states.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
On 1/27/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
In practice, yes, if:
- The information looks likely to be correct; and
Problem is that's subjective. How does one determine
what
is or is not likely?
Subjectivity is not inherently a problem, and for a
2 more problems. That's subjective and and it's not policy.
project like this it's bound to happen at some point. In this case one
At some point, we all die, so why wait? I'm not following your logic.
determines whether it's likely based on whether anyone actually challenges it. If nobody challenges a bit of information then either everyone thinks it's likely to be correct (that's good) or nobody has noticed it (not so good, but also makes the issue not terribly urgent). Or perhaps
Unless lots of people have noticed via external searching but no one has changed it and simply accepted it because its in an encyclopedia and they AGF. Have you heard of this new fangled concept called a false dilemma? I just heard about it. Something to do with logic.
nobody who's read it feels qualified to judge it, but a citation probably wouldn't help in that sort of situation.
Or somebody not only felt qualified, but did judge, changed it annonymously, assumed good faith, never bothered to check back on it to challenge reversions, only to have it changed back by the originator, a troll, vandal, an innocent admin, etc. This false dilemma concept sure puts things in perspective.
- Even if it isn't, it doesn't matter all that much
(not
potentially libelous, etc.); and
So, now we have the same subjectivity as 1) along with
a
test: If it causes legal problems, delete.
If nobody has a problem with it then there's no problem with leaving it in. Subjective but still quite useful.
If? And useful according to who? Anyone who's content with fake information? Spam? Pure nonsense? Having a page in a something that calls itself an encyclopedia say so? How is it useful?
- It looks likely that a source can be procured in
the
future.
Back to subjectivity. How does one determine whether a source is likely?
One just thinks it when one reads the information. eg., "The article says Mr. Foo died in 1975. I don't have access to a library to check right now but he was pretty famous so there's probably obituaries in the newspapers if nothing else." That's all that's needed, one doesn't have to actually look it up.
Actually, one does "have to" look it up. Which brings us back to the point of this dicussion. #1 policy NPOV states: "All [not some, not just those you decide are likely] Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must [as in "have to", this is not optional] be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source."
Also note the following in the NPOV policy: "absolute and non-negotiable."
You may consider Foo famous, but 99.7% of the world may not know who he is or where to find any information on him. That makes it OR until one provides reliable sources that show otherwise.
From the NPOV tutorial: "You must also ensure that your assertions about alternative uses are both significant and verifiable, using appropriate attribution and citation."
Now, applying this new technology of logic instead of that common sense thing, if something must have something, yet doesn't, should it be allowed to remain? If so, how long? If indefinite (infinite), then that's the same as saying that articles do not require NPOV. Any article can remain as long as one likes regardless of what NPOV states.
~~Pro-Lick
We could go on and on about this ad infinitum.
Ultimately, policy and consensus now are that you don't have to cite every single fact or sentence in every single Wikipedia article, and that over-citing is harmful.
As I have said elsewhere: this is not the project for those who want to build an encyclopedia starting and ending with completely verified sources. If you want it that badly, fork and create one.
George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Ultimately, policy and consensus now are that you don't have to cite every single fact or sentence in every single Wikipedia article, and that over-citing is harmful.
Interesting, but policy is policy, not your opinion or consensus, both of which you have no NPOV reliable sources for. Besides this discussion is with regard to articles that are completely uncited. In other words, you're providing a false dilemma. It's not about citing every last fact or deleting the article. It's about getting substantial ("significant") reliable sources cited, as is clearly and repeatedly stated in policy and guidelines.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
Cheney Shill wrote:
George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Ultimately, policy and consensus now are that you don't have to cite every single fact or sentence in every single Wikipedia article, and that over-citing is harmful.
Interesting, but policy is policy, not your opinion or consensus, both of which you have no NPOV reliable sources for. Besides this discussion is with regard to articles that are completely uncited. In other words, you're providing a false dilemma. It's not about citing every last fact or deleting the article. It's about getting substantial ("significant") reliable sources cited, as is clearly and repeatedly stated in policy and guidelines.
Oh please! Consensus guides policy, not the other way around which would be wikilawyering.
The most valuable editors are the ones who are able to look at a completely unsourced article and make a personal judgement about whether the continuing absence of sources is harmful of misleading. They are able to evaluate whether it is important to immediately add sources.
There is no dilemma, false or otherwise.
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
Interesting, but policy is policy, not your opinion or consensus, both of which you have no NPOV reliable
sources
for. Besides this discussion is with regard to articles that are completely uncited. In other words, you're providing a false dilemma. It's not about citing every last fact or deleting the article. It's about getting substantial ("significant") reliable sources cited, as
is
clearly and repeatedly stated in policy and guidelines.
Oh please! Consensus guides policy, not the other way around which would be wikilawyering.
And how do we determine what the present consensus is? You gave no citations to reliable sources. Are you arguing that the stated policy is not consensus? If so, where is this consensus and why isn't it in policy? Could you point us to where it says consensus is absolute and non-negotiable?
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Cheney Shill wrote:
And how do we determine what the present consensus is? You gave no citations to reliable sources.
Oh, please. Next you'll be saying we can't do a Google test to see if a subject is notable because that's original research.
The requirement for citations and reliable sources is, at best, a requirement for Wikipedia articles. It is *not* a requirement for talk pages, mailing lists, or anything else related to Wikipedia.
Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Cheney Shill wrote:
And how do we determine what the present consensus is? You gave no citations to reliable sources.
Oh, please. Next you'll be saying we can't do a Google test to see if a subject is notable because that's original research.
We're not discussing notability, I wouldn't say that (but it shouldn't be the only test given the problem of echo chamber effects and obvious marketing abuses of search engines), and you didn't answer the question.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
Cheney Shill wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
Interesting, but policy is policy, not your opinion or consensus, both of which you have no NPOV reliable sources
for. Besides this discussion is with regard to articles that are completely uncited. In other words, you're providing a false dilemma. It's not about citing every last fact or deleting the article. It's about getting substantial ("significant") reliable sources cited, as is
clearly and repeatedly stated in policy and guidelines.
Oh please! Consensus guides policy, not the other way around which would be wikilawyering.
And how do we determine what the present consensus is? You gave no citations to reliable sources. Are you arguing that the stated policy is not consensus? If so, where is this consensus and why isn't it in policy? Could you point us to where it says consensus is absolute and non-negotiable?
Many stated policies are not the result of a wide consensus because most people don't get involved in policies. These policies are the domain of people who enjoy writing policy. The rest of us have useful things to do with our time. Very few people are active in the policy pages. The participants are the proposer and those few who happened to notice.
Ec
Cheney Shill wrote:
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
In practice, yes, if:
- The information looks likely to be correct; and
Problem is that's subjective. How does one determine what is or is not likely?
Of course---the entire process of writing an encyclopedia requires some amount of human intelligence, which is why we've gone out and gotten people to work on it. Whether to delete an unreferenced article-in-progress or leave it to be improved is a subjective decision weighing the pros and cons of each. Actually, this is true even of referenced articles, since it takes very little effort to construct a completely misleading---but referenced---article.
-Mark
Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Whether to delete an unreferenced article-in-progress or leave it to be improved is a subjective decision
I don't have any problem with the concept of an ariticle-in-progress being left and tagged for important missing elements, such as citations of reliable published sources. The problem is how does one determine what is in-progress. Edits to the page or talk page within the last week? Month? Half year? Year?
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Cheney Shill schreef:
Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote: I don't have any problem with the concept of an ariticle-in-progress being left and tagged for important missing elements, such as citations of reliable published sources. The problem is how does one determine what is in-progress.
An article is in-progress until it is finished.
Edits to the page or talk page within the last week? Month? Half year? Year?
Yes, regular edits to the page or talk page are generally a good indication that the article is "finished".
Of course, no article is ever completely finished. [[WP:TIND]].
Eugene
Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Cheney Shill schreef:
sources. The problem is how does one determine what is in-progress.
An article is in-progress until it is finished.
So your POV is don't delete an article regardless of how long it violates policy.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Cheney Shill schreef:
Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Cheney Shill schreef:
sources. The problem is how does one determine what is in-progress.
An article is in-progress until it is finished.
So your POV is don't delete an article regardless of how long it violates policy.
Yes. An article that violates policy should be corrected, not deleted, unless it violates any of our policies on inclusion (notability, verifiability, etc.).
But that is irrelevant here, because we were talking about articles without cited sources; these do not violate policy, as has been said before.
Eugene
Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
But that is irrelevant here, because we were talking about articles without cited sources; these do not violate policy, as has been said before.
As has been "said" before, yes, without any support, including no policy citation to support it. The reality is, as has been cited before in WP:NPOV and WP:V, that articles without cited reliable sources do violate policy. Articles "must" contain them.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Cheney Shill schreef:
Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
But that is irrelevant here, because we were talking about articles without cited sources; these do not violate policy, as has been said before.
As has been "said" before, yes, without any support, including no policy citation to support it. The reality is, as has been cited before in WP:NPOV
WP:NPOV does not require a cited source. It says that any relevant published POV should be mentioned. Unsourced articles that do this are not violating WP:NPOV.
and WP:V,
WP:V only requires that sources are provided for challenged (or likely to be challenged) statements. Not all statements in Wikipedia are challenged or likely to be challenged. Unsourced articles containing only unchallenged statements are not violating WP:V.
that articles without cited reliable sources do violate policy. Articles "must" contain them.
No.
Eugene
On Jan 29, 2007, at 12:20, Cheney Shill wrote:
Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
An article is in-progress until it is finished.
So your POV is don't delete an article regardless of how long it violates policy.
Wikipedia doesn't have a policy that articles must be finished. You might be thinking of [[Encyclopædia Britannica|another encyclopedia]].
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
It seems like there has been an extended and unstated policy to create essentially article shells simply to get the article count up and increase Wikipedia's popularity.
I've created my share of stubs and this is not even remotely the reason why. In most cases it's because I went looking for an article, didn't find it, and wanted to get it started so that hopefully others would add more detail. Why should I care about Wikipedia's gross article count?
Assume good faith, please.
Even if we accept Cheney's premise the practice he describes is likely to be ineffectual. It might work with a small website with less than a hundred pages, but in a site with millions of pages the effect of these meaningless stubs will be trivial.
The alternative seems to be to continue to be the rear end of jokes about knowledge by consensus and hearsay like that on the 1/24 Colbert Report until WP loses what trust it has.
That's a false dilemma. While it's true that there are plenty of jokes out there about it, there's also a lot of respect and admiration as well. I don't see any big risk in continuing as we have been.
When you're big the jokes are a natural part of the landscape. You can't do anything about them.
Ec
On 1/27/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
Why not just start applying the policy? Set a time limit. No RS, delete. Maybe be nice and provide 1 last extended deletion notice: "This article will be deleted in x days if no RS are cited." That is, if it hasn't already been uncited for several months.
Sure, if you really want to nuke 9/10ths of Wikipedia.
It seems like there has been an extended and unstated policy to create essentially article shells simply to get the article count up and increase Wikipedia's popularity.
Don't be cynical. I create stubs to increase Wikipedia's *usefulness*.
WP has a high enough count and popularity. Why not start actually focusing on content detail and enforcing the long standing yet rarely applied policies?
How do you focus a group of some tens of thousands of self-interested volunteers?
The alternative seems to be to continue to be the rear end of jokes about knowledge by consensus and hearsay like that on the 1/24 Colbert Report until WP loses what trust it has.
Wikipedia started as a joke and is rapidly gaining in prestige. What makes you think its trend is the other direction?
Steve
Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/27/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
WP has a high enough count and popularity. Why not
start
actually focusing on content detail and enforcing the
long
standing yet rarely applied policies?
How do you focus a group of some tens of thousands of self-interested volunteers?
Is that, what's the word, cynicism? So policy and content doesn't matter to "usefulness", only thousands of self-interested volunteers (AKA, popularity)?
Step 1 would be actually start applying the policy. If they're self-interested, and by that you mean interested in their own articles, those that created/contributed to the violating articles will get interested in correcting the article instead of losing it. If you mean your administrators, make it an important part of whatever you do to make them admins and reward and punish them.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
On 1/28/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
Step 1 would be actually start applying the policy.
Policy really doesn't say what you think it does.
This is trolling wiki-en.
On 1/26/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/27/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Well, we could say "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources might be deleted." But that's no incentive to actually cite
sources.
It's sad to see it makes no difference whatsoever.
Is this what we've come to? Being honest with our contributors doesn't work, so we attempt to scare them with hollow threats? FFS.
Don't worry, there are plenty of people who want to make good on the threats.
On 1/26/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Saw this when creating a redirect. Aren't we a little early for April Fool's?
Steve
Eh it's been a fairly standard reason to use it prods for some time roughly translates as "we don't belive the author of this article.
Steve Bennett wrote:
Saw this when creating a redirect. Aren't we a little early for April Fool's?
And, once again, it links to the guideline [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] as part of this absolute statement. I complained about something similar back in November and it got taken out pretty quick. At least this time there isn't also a link to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]].
Is there some place where changes to this statement are discussed that I'm unaware of, or is it just being jerked back and forth at individual whim?
You could say something at MediaWiki_talk:Newarticletext I suppose?
On 1/26/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Saw this when creating a redirect. Aren't we a little early for April
Fool's?
And, once again, it links to the guideline [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] as part of this absolute statement. I complained about something similar back in November and it got taken out pretty quick. At least this time there isn't also a link to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]].
Is there some place where changes to this statement are discussed that I'm unaware of, or is it just being jerked back and forth at individual whim?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Gary Kirk wrote:
You could say something at MediaWiki_talk:Newarticletext I suppose?
Done, and I also reverted to the previous less-absolute message while I was there. [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles]] hasn't passed consensus and last I checked looked unlikely to do so any time soon, so if nothing else the message was simply inaccurate.
On 1/27/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Is there some place where changes to this statement are discussed that I'm unaware of, or is it just being jerked back and forth at individual whim?
Individual whim trumps consensus for GUI messages for some reason. Something I abhor, as admins are *not* supposed to use their power in this way.
Geni: Eh it's been a fairly standard reason to use it prods for some time roughly translates as "we don't belive the author of this article.
There's a big difference between "This author has not cited his sources" and "We don't believe this author". If the first is being used as a euphemism for the second, this is a bit sloppy. No one should ever be deleting material which is harmless (not libellous, copyvio etc), useful (not vanity, nonsense etc) and totally believable, even if it's not sourced.
Well, that's my take, and a hell of a lot closer to actual practice than "All unsourced material will be deleted".
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 1/27/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Is there some place where changes to this statement are discussed that I'm unaware of, or is it just being jerked back and forth at individual whim?
Individual whim trumps consensus for GUI messages for some reason. Something I abhor, as admins are *not* supposed to use their power in this way.
I hope my recent reversion of this message back to the previous version doesn't count as abhorrent too. :)
Personally, I think that if a message like this is to have links to policy pages they should only be to the high-level ones such as [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. That way new editors can get a general overview that's got both general consensus and official fiat on its side, rather than being dumped into the battlegrounds of the more-specific but less-binding guideline pages.