In a message dated 3/30/2008 8:45:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm writes:
Of course it isn't a source that can be cited in the article. On the ther hand, if an editor I trust says they called and got the scoop, I would take that into account on a talk page. >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a permanent-media source, like a news video states that the bridge is closed, but a Wikipedian calls the transit company to confirm that it's open, then the article citing the video would still say it's closed, and we as Wikipedians should be asking the transit company to post an article to their own website to say "Well now it's open" or whatever.
Telephone calls, emails, faxes and the like are not items which are themselves, in their "own person" verifiable. Although you may verify them by repeating essentially the same procedure, it is not actually the same finite and fixed source.
My personal viewing of an artwork, should never be put on-par with a published account of same. My own personal knowledge, however collected of a situation, should never be put on-par with published accounts.
Will Johnson
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolh...)
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 01:21:03AM -0400, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
My personal viewing of an artwork, should never be put on-par with a published account of same. My own personal knowledge, however collected of a situation, should never be put on-par with published accounts.
We probably agree the goal of the verifiability policy is that editors should avoid adding their own analysis to articles when that analysis hasn't been published anywhere. It's a very reasonable policy, and when I explain it to new editors they "get it" very quickly. Even experts in a field are able to see that the role of Wikipedia is not to present new arguments.
But the verifiability policy is not a suicide pact. It doesn't mean that editors should ignore what they actually do know about a subject. WP:V was never intended to prevent people from using their personal knowledge and training in the editorial process and on talk pages. WP:NOR was meant to keep novel, crackpot theories out of articles, not to force people to cite standard facts that every undergraduate textbook on the subject conveys.
In the end, I don't see how we can put forward a coherent argument that someone can write a high-quality article on a topic about which they are essentially naive. We are the encyclopedia that anyone can write, but not just anyone can write any article.
- Carl
Well, here goes the expert rebellion again. Consistently I've found editors rejecting any personal expertise in favor of anything that looks much like a traditional source.
As far as the bridge thing is concerned, my personal bias is against including that sort of information, one way of the other. Reality is too much of a moving target for that sort of detail to maintain currency.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
But the verifiability policy is not a suicide pact. It doesn't mean that editors should ignore what they actually do know about a subject. WP:V was never intended to prevent people from using their personal knowledge and training in the editorial process and on talk pages. WP:NOR was meant to keep novel, crackpot theories out of articles, not to force people to cite standard facts that every undergraduate textbook on the subject conveys.
On Mar 31, 2008, at 6:53 PM, The Mangoe wrote:
Well, here goes the expert rebellion again. Consistently I've found editors rejecting any personal expertise in favor of anything that looks much like a traditional source.
Indeed. Our anti-expertise culture is getting to the point where "Expert knowledge is not required to edit" and "We really would like some sources" are being replaced with "You should edit articles on subjects you know nothing about and actively avoid writing in areas you are familiar with."
-Phil