Hi,

warrants deletion. But my point is this: I believe verifiability should and will be achieved through a collaborative process.

You make some very good points. One concern I have is that we lack the tools for users to share their tentative sources. Where exactly would a user note "Think I this in one of Chomsky's earlier works"? In the comment? In a <!-- comment -->? Starting a separate section on the talk page just for a single sentence?

It would be good to have some kind of understood process for how claims are first described as verifiable/unverifiable, then become verified/unverified. This process is extremely haphasard at the moment.

Steve

steven l. rubenstein wrote:

It is natural that as we grow our values take more certain form, and our understanding of them, and the reasons for them, develop.

I believe that Verifiability and No original research are two policies essential to the future of the project, which is to produce a high-quality encyclopedia. If other encyclopedias are not rigorous on these matters, it is because their articles are generally written by PhD.s or graduate students, and are peer-reviewed. I do not want our articles to have to be written by PhD.s or go through mandated and rigorous peer-review. Therefore, I think these two policies are necessary. And hand-in-hand with them, our Cite sources guideline is just as important.

Although I may have a slightly more liberal attitude toward NOR; I would still view NPOV as having equally high sources. To me citing sources is implicit in verifiability.

I sometimes feel uncertain about the extent to which other publications have been peer reviewed. How often are the peer reviewers credited? A PhD's reputation is often more influential. I think that our approach which credits everyone who has worked on an article is superior to anonymous peer-reviews.

If I have been following this discussion adequately (and I admit I often miss things) many people have concerns about how realistic it is to expect every editor, especially newbies, to comply with these standards. And I appreciate these concerns. However, I do not think the issue is compliance with these standards as such. I think there is a different issue.

Specifically, it is our articles that must comply with these standards. This I think is important for one simple reason that gets at the heart of our project: it is a collaborative work in process.

If Wikipedia is as I believe it is and ought to be a collaborative work in process, then our policies are ideals to which we expect our articles to aspire, but no one editor can bear the full responsibility of achieving this.

This is perfectly sensible. It's about the articles rather than their authors.

This, at least, has always been my understanding of our prized NPOV policy. For example, I just added considerable material on the role of "love" in Judaism in the "Judaism and Christianity" article. I have no doubt that I have failed to express the full range of Jewish views. Moreover, I am not qualified to explain the Christian views. Does this mean I have violated NPOV? I do not think so, because I have identified which point of view I have represented (and here, citing sources is practically a requirement). And I have left notices on a variety of talk pages, of both articles and users, inviting them to add more Jewish views and Christian views. This is what I mean by a collaborative effort. It may not be this week or this month but I have no doubt that in a year this section of the article will represent a variety of views fairly.

There is the ideal of writing for your opponents, but that should not extend to creating controversies where there are none. In the absence of a controversy your writing can only be based on your own experiences and understanding.

In other words, I wrote my contribution so as not to break our NPOV policy, and so as to leave room for others to contribute.

Is the early maxim, "always leave something undone" still valid?

I just think we should take the same approach to Verifiability. No one should deliberately add unverifiable information in an article, and if they do, it should be deleted. Moreover, no one should bear the bull responsibility of providing all sources. In the Capitalism article someone has made claims about communism. I did not immediately demand that they provide a source. I first when to my books by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao. I could not find confirmation in any of the books for some of those claims added by another editor. Had I, I would have added the sources myself -- this is what I mean by collaboration.

There is also a question of relevance here. I have not recently viewed the article, but the question that stands out is, "In an article on capitalism how much should we be talking about communism or any other economic philosophy." These subjects have articles of their own, and can be easily linked. Assuming that the material does indeed belong there, you have done what you can by checking available fundamental sources.

In one case I could not find a source and said so, and another contributor provided the source -- this is what I mean by collaboration.

Absolutely, but if no others can find appropriate sources the responsibility comes back to the person who made the original assertion.

I would demand that the specific editor adding specific information provide the source only if I could not find the source myself and suspected that the information were unverifiable. If the contributor in question, as well as other contributors, cannot find a verifiable source, I do believe that warrants deletion. But my point is this: I believe verifiability should and will be achieved through a collaborative process.

Often that contributor is no longer active or available for us to question.

That said, I also insist on the corollary: our collaborative process should be dedicated to producing articles based on verifiable sources. A collective process requires a collective commitment.

Yes.

Ec