From: "Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com
On 2/24/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Without sources it is [[wikipedia:original research]] and inadmissible.
That's an extreme interpretation of that rule. We should shy aware from removing information simply because it is unsourced. We should only remove it if it is unsourced *and* we find it suspect.
Steve
In short, you do not agree with the verifiability policy, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V
On 2/26/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
From: "Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com
On 2/24/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Without sources it is [[wikipedia:original research]] and inadmissible.
That's an extreme interpretation of that rule. We should shy aware from removing information simply because it is unsourced. We should only remove it if it is unsourced *and* we find it suspect.
Steve
In short, you do not agree with the verifiability policy, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V
I disagree with it strongly. The policy as stated goes way against the stronger policy of Assume Good Faith.
On 2/27/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/26/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
In short, you do not agree with the verifiability policy, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V
I disagree with it strongly. The policy as stated goes way against the stronger policy of Assume Good Faith.
"Trust, but verify"
The policies don't have to conflict. People can add material in good faith and still be completely wrong, which is exactly what happened in the Liberty instance.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 2/26/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
From: "Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com
On 2/24/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Without sources it is [[wikipedia:original research]] and inadmissible.
That's an extreme interpretation of that rule. We should shy aware from removing information simply because it is unsourced. We should only remove it if it is unsourced *and* we find it suspect.
Steve
In short, you do not agree with the verifiability policy, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V
I disagree with it strongly. The policy as stated goes way against the stronger policy of Assume Good Faith.
WP:NOT a feel-good social experiment. It's a project to build an encyclopedia. It's very possible to both AGF and remove the information, anyhow. Or shall we just AGF and remove all sources because it might reflect badly on the credibility of our editors?
John
On 2/27/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
That's an extreme interpretation of that rule. We should shy aware from removing information simply because it is unsourced. We should only remove it if it is unsourced *and* we find it suspect.
In short, you do not agree with the verifiability policy, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V
You may see comments from me on the talk page there. I actually think people reworded it more strongly than they meant to. Verifiability was never, IMHO, intended to mean "delete everything that isn't sourced", or else 95% of the encyclopaedia would be wiped tonight. It should be a way of resolving disputes about accuracy, and improving the quality of our material.
If the verifiability policy currently says (I can't check it right now) that all unsourced material should be removed - end of story - then yes, I disagree with it.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/27/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
That's an extreme interpretation of that rule. We should shy aware from removing information simply because it is unsourced. We should only remove it if it is unsourced *and* we find it suspect.
In short, you do not agree with the verifiability policy, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V
You may see comments from me on the talk page there. I actually think people reworded it more strongly than they meant to. Verifiability was never, IMHO, intended to mean "delete everything that isn't sourced", or else 95% of the encyclopaedia would be wiped tonight. It should be a way of resolving disputes about accuracy, and improving the quality of our material.
If the verifiability policy currently says (I can't check it right now) that all unsourced material should be removed - end of story - then yes, I disagree with it.
I'm sure you have valid reasons for not being able to "check it right now". This is for something which we know exists somewhere in Wikipedia. Many other things are more difficult to properly research, and may involve travel to a library. Cutting these people some slack is preferable to being a rule robot.
Ec
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
From: "Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com
On 2/24/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Without sources it is [[wikipedia:original research]] and inadmissible.
That's an extreme interpretation of that rule. We should shy aware from removing information simply because it is unsourced. We should only remove it if it is unsourced *and* we find it suspect.
Steve
In short, you do not agree with the verifiability policy, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V
Evidently only in its "trivial" aspects.
Ec