I've just seen a couple of proposed decisions by the ArbCom that are very worrying from the point of view of making sure Wikipedia has reliable, sourced information.
They are on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Propos...
The proposals I have difficulty with are as follows:-
3.2.2 Sources demanded 2) After Xed restored, Jayjg demanded sources [6] [7] despite the fact that a simple Google search [8] gives 80,000 hits. He also removed any reference to occupation.
and 3.3.3 Viriditas and Jayjg reminded regarding NPOV 3) Viriditas (talk contribs) and Jayjg (talk contribs) are reminded that Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise which operates by consensus. Masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources is inappropriate
Regarding the first one, I think it is fundamentally important that the onus is on the editor inserting information into an article to provide a source. It's easy to add information - but time-consuming to check it's veracity (particularly if you don't know where it's come from).
Regarding the second one, I don't believe it can ever be wrong to ask for sources for unreference information. Indeed, one good way of NPOV'ing articles is to make sure everything in them is properly sourced.
Taken together these rulings, if passed (and they are in the balance now), could create serious difficulty when dealing with trolls and other disruptive users. User:Troll adds a "fact" in a controversial article. User:Troll then refuses to remove it because other readers can't cite a source disproving it or says it is for others to find the source, but the "fact" should remain, whilst dismissing editors who are even asking him for sources for his edits as being POV warriors and warning them that ArbCom has already found against their position.
Yours concernedly
Jon
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo.
My thought (I wrote these) was that they were harassing him. Of course he has to provide sources, but so do they. If their purpose is to strongly resist any edit which offends their point of view they don't feel they need to bother to look the subject up. They can play the "provide sources" game. Note that when Xed finally came up with some sources they deleted them, not good enough. These folks were engaged in game playing. To Viriditas's credit, he kept looking and found a really good reference that substantially improved the article.
Fred
On Dec 24, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Jon wrote:
I've just seen a couple of proposed decisions by the ArbCom that are very worrying from the point of view of making sure Wikipedia has reliable, sourced information.
They are on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Proposed_decision
The proposals I have difficulty with are as follows:-
3.2.2 Sources demanded 2) After Xed restored, Jayjg demandedsources [6] [7] despite the fact that a simple Google search [8] gives 80,000 hits. He also removed any reference to occupation.
and 3.3.3 Viriditas and Jayjg reminded regarding NPOV 3) Viriditas (talk • contribs) and Jayjg (talk • contribs) are reminded that Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise which operates by consensus. Masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources is inappropriate
Regarding the first one, I think it is fundamentally important that the onus is on the editor inserting information into an article to provide a source. It's easy to add information - but time-consuming to check it's veracity (particularly if you don't know where it's come from).
Regarding the second one, I don't believe it can ever be wrong to ask for sources for unreference information. Indeed, one good way of NPOV'ing articles is to make sure everything in them is properly sourced.
Taken together these rulings, if passed (and they are in the balance now), could create serious difficulty when dealing with trolls and other disruptive users. User:Troll adds a "fact" in a controversial article. User:Troll then refuses to remove it because other readers can't cite a source disproving it or says it is for others to find the source, but the "fact" should remain, whilst dismissing editors who are even asking him for sources for his edits as being POV warriors and warning them that ArbCom has already found against their position.
Yours concernedly
Jon
Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
My thought (I wrote these) was that they were harassing him. Of course he has to provide sources, but so do they. If their purpose is to strongly resist any edit which offends their point of view they don't feel they need to bother to look the subject up. They can play the "provide sources" game. Note that when Xed finally came up with some sources they deleted them, not good enough. These folks were engaged in game playing. To Viriditas's credit, he kept looking and found a really good reference that substantially improved the article.
1. It's still creating sticks for idiots to wield in future. Wording bad enough to be worse than nothing at all.
2. If someone supplies a completely shit source that's not good enough. There's been just a little discussion on this topic on wikien-l of late.
- d.
"David Gerard" wrote
- It's still creating sticks for idiots to wield in future. Wording bad
enough to be worse than nothing at all.
I think Fred has a point. There are plenty, plenty people out there editing WP, and not bad folk, who will insist that policy makes wiki a rule-based game. Rather than defining a style book within which one should comfortably write. This particular case resonates with me.
Charles
Fred
Thanks for your comments.
If the problem is as you say it is (and I haven't read the details of the case myself), then the problem seems not to be that sources were asked for (even though a google search might have found some quickly), but rather:
(i) When they were provided, due consideration wasn't given to them.
(ii) That sources weren't provided by those asking for the other side to provide them.
I deliberately use "due consideration" in (i) as after due consideration the conclusion may be that the source is crap (as David Gerard has said).
I'd also argue strongly that if a google search could have found reliable sources quickly, it is still the job of the editor adding the information to do the work to find them. After all, the first 10 or so links in google might be, on closer examination, totally unsuitable as references.
Could you give consideration to rewording the proposed Finding of Fact and Remedy to better target the mischief you believe is there?
Many thanks
Jon
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: My thought (I wrote these) was that they were harassing him. Of course he has to provide sources, but so do they. If their purpose is to strongly resist any edit which offends their point of view they don't feel they need to bother to look the subject up. They can play the "provide sources" game. Note that when Xed finally came up with some sources they deleted them, not good enough. These folks were engaged in game playing. To Viriditas's credit, he kept looking and found a really good reference that substantially improved the article.
Fred
On Dec 24, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Jon wrote:
I've just seen a couple of proposed decisions by the ArbCom that are very worrying from the point of view of making sure Wikipedia has reliable, sourced information.
They are on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Proposed_decision
The proposals I have difficulty with are as follows:-
3.2.2 Sources demanded 2) After Xed restored, Jayjg demanded sources [6] [7] despite the fact that a simple Google search [8] gives 80,000 hits. He also removed any reference to occupation.
and 3.3.3 Viriditas and Jayjg reminded regarding NPOV 3) Viriditas (talk contribs) and Jayjg (talk contribs) are reminded that Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise which operates by consensus. Masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources is inappropriate
Regarding the first one, I think it is fundamentally important that the onus is on the editor inserting information into an article to provide a source. It's easy to add information - but time-consuming to check it's veracity (particularly if you don't know where it's come from).
Regarding the second one, I don't believe it can ever be wrong to ask for sources for unreference information. Indeed, one good way of NPOV'ing articles is to make sure everything in them is properly sourced.
Taken together these rulings, if passed (and they are in the balance now), could create serious difficulty when dealing with trolls and other disruptive users. User:Troll adds a "fact" in a controversial article. User:Troll then refuses to remove it because other readers can't cite a source disproving it or says it is for others to find the source, but the "fact" should remain, whilst dismissing editors who are even asking him for sources for his edits as being POV warriors and warning them that ArbCom has already found against their position.
Yours concernedly
Jon
Yahoo! Photos NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Play Santa's Celebrity Xmas Party, an exclusive game from Yahoo!
Jon wrote:
I'd also argue strongly that if a google search could have found reliable sources quickly, it is still the job of the editor adding the information to do the work to find them. After all, the first 10 or so links in google might be, on closer examination, totally unsuitable as references.
Damn right it is.
- d.
I'm comfortable with the proposed findings. There is a problem with dragging Veriditas in, less of a problem with bringing Jayjg in. But that is because Snowspinner didn't adequately investigate the transaction. When you look at the whole transaction, there were 4 users involved, not just one bad apple, however cranky he may be.
Fred
On Dec 24, 2005, at 1:23 PM, Jon wrote:
Fred
Thanks for your comments.
If the problem is as you say it is (and I haven't read the details of the case myself), then the problem seems not to be that sources were asked for (even though a google search might have found some quickly), but rather:
(i) When they were provided, due consideration wasn't given to them.
(ii) That sources weren't provided by those asking for the other side to provide them.
I deliberately use "due consideration" in (i) as after due consideration the conclusion may be that the source is crap (as David Gerard has said).
I'd also argue strongly that if a google search could have found reliable sources quickly, it is still the job of the editor adding the information to do the work to find them. After all, the first 10 or so links in google might be, on closer examination, totally unsuitable as references.
Could you give consideration to rewording the proposed Finding of Fact and Remedy to better target the mischief you believe is there?
Many thanks
Jon
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: My thought (I wrote these) was that they were harassing him. Of course he has to provide sources, but so do they. If their purpose is to strongly resist any edit which offends their point of view they don't feel they need to bother to look the subject up. They can play the "provide sources" game. Note that when Xed finally came up with some sources they deleted them, not good enough. These folks were engaged in game playing. To Viriditas's credit, he kept looking and found a really good reference that substantially improved the article.
Fred
On Dec 24, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Jon wrote:
I've just seen a couple of proposed decisions by the ArbCom that are very worrying from the point of view of making sure Wikipedia has reliable, sourced information.
They are on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Proposed_decision
The proposals I have difficulty with are as follows:-
3.2.2 Sources demanded 2) After Xed restored, Jayjg demanded sources [6] [7] despite the fact that a simple Google search [8] gives 80,000 hits. He also removed any reference to occupation.
and 3.3.3 Viriditas and Jayjg reminded regarding NPOV 3) Viriditas (talk • contribs) and Jayjg (talk • contribs) are reminded that Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise which operates by consensus. Masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources is inappropriate
Regarding the first one, I think it is fundamentally important that the onus is on the editor inserting information into an article to provide a source. It's easy to add information - but time-consuming to check it's veracity (particularly if you don't know where it's come from).
Regarding the second one, I don't believe it can ever be wrong to ask for sources for unreference information. Indeed, one good way of NPOV'ing articles is to make sure everything in them is properly sourced.
Taken together these rulings, if passed (and they are in the balance now), could create serious difficulty when dealing with trolls and other disruptive users. User:Troll adds a "fact" in a controversial article. User:Troll then refuses to remove it because other readers can't cite a source disproving it or says it is for others to find the source, but the "fact" should remain, whilst dismissing editors who are even asking him for sources for his edits as being POV warriors and warning them that ArbCom has already found against their position.
Yours concernedly
Jon
Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Play Santa's Celebrity Xmas Party, an exclusive game from Yahoo! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The real issue, of course, is that Xed did not come up with sources for his claims; instead, he reverted the request for citations multiple times, then finally inserted links to articles which mentioned none of the contentious claims for which cites were being asked in the first place. Some of the findings even point this out. The fact that broad Google searches produce tens of thousands of results is irrelevant, since none of them actually support the claims being made, and it's certainly not my "responsibility" to provide evidence for claims which are, in fact, false. As for "harassment", it was obviously Xed who was harassing, since he was simply following me from article to article and reverting me to versions of articles which contained clearly absurd POV.
The only "game" going on is the "provide bogus sources when asked for cites and hope no-one bothers to actually read what the links say game, followed by the cry "no matter what I do they delete my sources" game.
Jay.
On 12/24/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
My thought (I wrote these) was that they were harassing him. Of course he has to provide sources, but so do they. If their purpose is to strongly resist any edit which offends their point of view they don't feel they need to bother to look the subject up. They can play the "provide sources" game. Note that when Xed finally came up with some sources they deleted them, not good enough. These folks were engaged in game playing. To Viriditas's credit, he kept looking and found a really good reference that substantially improved the article.
Fred
On Dec 24, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Jon wrote:
I've just seen a couple of proposed decisions by the ArbCom that are very worrying from the point of view of making sure Wikipedia has reliable, sourced information.
They are on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Proposed_decision
The proposals I have difficulty with are as follows:-
3.2.2 Sources demanded 2) After Xed restored, Jayjg demandedsources [6] [7] despite the fact that a simple Google search [8] gives 80,000 hits. He also removed any reference to occupation.
and 3.3.3 Viriditas and Jayjg reminded regarding NPOV 3) Viriditas (talk • contribs) and Jayjg (talk • contribs) are reminded that Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise which operates by consensus. Masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources is inappropriate
Regarding the first one, I think it is fundamentally important that the onus is on the editor inserting information into an article to provide a source. It's easy to add information - but time-consuming to check it's veracity (particularly if you don't know where it's come from).
Regarding the second one, I don't believe it can ever be wrong to ask for sources for unreference information. Indeed, one good way of NPOV'ing articles is to make sure everything in them is properly sourced.
Taken together these rulings, if passed (and they are in the balance now), could create serious difficulty when dealing with trolls and other disruptive users. User:Troll adds a "fact" in a controversial article. User:Troll then refuses to remove it because other readers can't cite a source disproving it or says it is for others to find the source, but the "fact" should remain, whilst dismissing editors who are even asking him for sources for his edits as being POV warriors and warning them that ArbCom has already found against their position.
Yours concernedly
Jon
Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That Jerusalem was occupied by Isreal and Jordan from 1947 to 1967, and by Israel ever since the Six Day War, is a historical fact that should not be removed from an article.
On 12/25/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
That Jerusalem was occupied by Isreal and Jordan from 1947 to 1967, and by Israel ever since the Six Day War, is a historical fact that should not be removed from an article.
Neither the dispute nor the finding were about that.
Jay.
No, they involved that.
Fred
On Dec 25, 2005, at 12:49 PM, jayjg wrote:
On 12/25/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
That Jerusalem was occupied by Isreal and Jordan from 1947 to 1967, and by Israel ever since the Six Day War, is a historical fact that should not be removed from an article.
Neither the dispute nor the finding were about that.
Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not really; no edit wars about that, no complaints in Talk: about that, no sources "removed" regarding that. The alleged issue is removal of "sources" regarding the movie and the Academy of Motion Pictures.
Jay.
On 12/25/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
No, they involved that.
Fred
On Dec 25, 2005, at 12:49 PM, jayjg wrote:
On 12/25/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
That Jerusalem was occupied by Isreal and Jordan from 1947 to 1967, and by Israel ever since the Six Day War, is a historical fact that should not be removed from an article.
Neither the dispute nor the finding were about that.
Jay. _______________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divine_Intervention_%28film% 29&diff=next&oldid=27078698
Fred
On Dec 25, 2005, at 1:03 PM, jayjg wrote:
Not really; no edit wars about that, no complaints in Talk: about that, no sources "removed" regarding that. The alleged issue is removal of "sources" regarding the movie and the Academy of Motion Pictures.
Jay.
On 12/25/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
No, they involved that.
Fred
On Dec 25, 2005, at 12:49 PM, jayjg wrote:
On 12/25/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
That Jerusalem was occupied by Isreal and Jordan from 1947 to 1967, and by Israel ever since the Six Day War, is a historical fact that should not be removed from an article.
Neither the dispute nor the finding were about that.
Jay. _______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
But that is just you and me and all the rest of the world's opinion. Israel has annexed East Jerusalem.
Fred
On Dec 25, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
That Jerusalem was occupied by Isreal and Jordan from 1947 to 1967, and by Israel ever since the Six Day War, is a historical fact that should not be removed from an article. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Dec 25, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote: That Jerusalem was occupied by Isreal and Jordan from 1947 to 1967, and by Israel ever since the Six Day War, is a historical fact that should not be removed from an article.
On 12/25/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
But that is just you and me and all the rest of the world's opinion.
Just because most people regard Jerusalem and the West Bank as occupied doesn't mean the word has to be mentioned at each and every opportunity. It could have been included somewhere in the article, but it isn't part of Jerusalem's name, as the anon added. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divine_Intervention_%28film%29&... Naomi Campbell may be beautiful, but we don't call her Beautiful Naomi Campbell.
Sarah
On 12/24/05, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote: The proposals I have difficulty with are as follows:-
3.2.2 Sources demanded 2) After Xed restored, Jayjg demanded sources[6] [7] despite the fact that a simple Google search [8] gives 80,000 hits. He also removed any reference to occupation.
and 3.3.3 Viriditas and Jayjg reminded regarding NPOV 3) Viriditas (talk • contribs) and Jayjg (talk • contribs) are reminded that Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise which operates by consensus. Masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources is inappropriate
Regarding the first one, I think it is fundamentally important that the onus is on the editor inserting information into an article to provide a source. It's easy to add information - but time-consuming to check it's veracity (particularly if you don't know where it's come from).
Regarding the second one, I don't believe it can ever be wrong to ask for sources for unreference information. Indeed, one good way of NPOV'ing articles is to make sure everything in them is properly sourced.
I'm reluctant to post on this one, as I don't know that much about the case. The first proposal you mention I strongly disagree with; currently it has two in support and two opposing, so I don't know if it'll pass. The second, though, I think is problematic, but more O.K. Note that it doesn't say: "citing NPOV and sources is inappropriate." The key words are "Masking of POV edits under the guise...is inappropriate." That I agree with. Pretending to be NPOV and being POV is a problem.
The thing I have a problem with on that one is that it sounds a bit like the ArbCom is deciding what's NPOV and what's not as a decree (note that I haven't read the full case, so I will retract that statement readily and immediately if that's not what's happening). I don't know, though, maybe it was just crystal clear POV-pushing.
It's definitely not crystal clear. What they are doing is pretty subtle. Xed was also going too far. That confuses things.
Fred
On Dec 24, 2005, at 10:36 AM, Blackcap wrote:
I'm reluctant to post on this one, as I don't know that much about the case. The first proposal you mention I strongly disagree with; currently it has two in support and two opposing, so I don't know if it'll pass. The second, though, I think is problematic, but more O.K. Note that it doesn't say: "citing NPOV and sources is inappropriate." The key words are "Masking of POV edits under the guise...is inappropriate." That I agree with. Pretending to be NPOV and being POV is a problem.
The thing I have a problem with on that one is that it sounds a bit like the ArbCom is deciding what's NPOV and what's not as a decree (note that I haven't read the full case, so I will retract that statement readily and immediately if that's not what's happening). I don't know, though, maybe it was just crystal clear POV-pushing.
On 12/24/05, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I've just seen a couple of proposed decisions by the ArbCom that are very worrying from the point of view of making sure Wikipedia has reliable, sourced information ...
... I think it is fundamentally important that the onus is on the editor inserting information into an article to provide a source. It's easy to add information - but time-consuming to check it's veracity (particularly if you don't know where it's come from).
I agree with Jon. The problem with the proposed ruling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Propos... is that it reprimands two editors because they asked for sources from an inveterate POV-pusher, which is exactly what they should have done. The policy is [[WP:V]], which says: (1) the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds the material (in this case Xed and an anon); (2) one reason to ask for sources is if the edit is overly vague (it was) and if the editor has a history of making inaccurate claims (Xed does); and (3) any material not sourced may be removed by any editor.
Jay and Viriditas were asking for sources for some wild claims inserted by an anon and supported by Xed, including that the film Divine Intervention had not been nominated for an Academy Award because of a "vigorous campaign by Zionist activists to bar the movie ..." There was no evidence at all of any "Zionist" campaign. There's a good ABC News article about the controversy, which was basically a series of misunderstandings combined with a lack of insight into the Palestinian situation. http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79485&page=1
One of the proposed findings of fact says that: "After Xed restored, Jayjg demanded sources despite the fact that a simple Google search gives 80,000 hits ..." But the Google search cited was for "'Divine Intervention' academy". http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=... That search tells us nothing about what credible sources were saying about the controversy, unless the ruling means Jay and Viriditas should have looked through the 80,000 entries for sources themselves, on behalf of Xed. But that's not what [[WP:V]] says. Yes, it would be ideal if every editor would search for sources for other people's edits, including the ones they think are wrong, but in reality no one has the time to do that, which is why the policy is clear that the burden of evidence always lies with the person who makes the edit.
The proposed decision sends a message that editors have to be careful when asking for sources, which is the opposite of the one many of us are trying to get across.
Sarah
The proposed decision says that if you are just using a request for sources as a tactic in POV edit warring it will not necessarily be taken at face value.
Fred
On Dec 25, 2005, at 1:42 PM, slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The proposed decision sends a message that editors have to be careful when asking for sources, which is the opposite of the one many of us are trying to get across.
Sarah
On 12/25/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The proposed decision says that if you are just using a request for sources as a tactic in POV edit warring it will not necessarily be taken at face value.
The difficulty is that we can never be sure that a request for sources is being used as a tactic. And even if it is, either there's a good source or there isn't, and if there isn't, the material shouldn't be in the article.
I've had editors ask me for sources for things that were obviously true (to me) and it was pretty clear they did it just to be irritating, but going off to find the sources was nevertheless instructive, and on one occasion I couldn't find a source that said exactly what I had added. So the wrong intention can lead to the right result.
But in the case being discussed, I see no evidence of bad intentions. When you're up against an editor like Xed, requesting sources for every edit is about the only way to deal with him, and it's what the policy recommends.
Sarah
Fred Bauder wrote:
The proposed decision says that if you are just using a request for sources as a tactic in POV edit warring it will not necessarily be taken at face value.
You've dealt with enough bad-faith POV pushers and what they'll take as a cue to let it rest at that. The proposal is actually worse for its knock-on effects than as the original insult to good editors trying to deal with an odious POV-pusher like Xed that it was.
- d.
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Jon. The problem with the proposed ruling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Propos... is that it reprimands two editors because they asked for sources from an inveterate POV-pusher, which is exactly what they should have done. The policy is [[WP:V]], which says: (1) the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds the material (in this case Xed and an anon); (2) one reason to ask for sources is if the edit is overly vague (it was) and if the editor has a history of making inaccurate claims (Xed does); and (3) any material not sourced may be removed by any editor.
Yep.
Jay and Viriditas were asking for sources for some wild claims inserted by an anon and supported by Xed, including that the film Divine Intervention had not been nominated for an Academy Award because of a "vigorous campaign by Zionist activists to bar the movie ..." There was no evidence at all of any "Zionist" campaign. There's a good ABC News article about the controversy, which was basically a series of misunderstandings combined with a lack of insight into the Palestinian situation. http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79485&page=1 One of the proposed findings of fact says that: "After Xed restored, Jayjg demanded sources despite the fact that a simple Google search gives 80,000 hits ..." But the Google search cited was for "'Divine Intervention' academy". http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=...
Yep.
The proposed decision sends a message that editors have to be careful when asking for sources, which is the opposite of the one many of us are trying to get across.
And that's why this proposed decision is not only mind-bogglingly awful both as a way to treat good editors, but even *more so* for its follow-on effects. It sets an incredibly awful example and it amazes me that there are people this isn't obvious to at a glance.
- d.