I'm using a new e-mail account with an unfamiliar email program, since my usual e-mail account is directly tied to my real identity; this e-mail program formatted that message in a weird way for reasons I can't discern, and I'll assume that it was the odd formatting that created the situation that led you to take this statement out of context by quoting only half the sentence, making it look like I was saying something utterly different from what I was saying.

The whole sentence reads:

"I can't tell whether Wikipedia intends to be a serious encyclopedia, or whether Wikipedia is "about verifiability, not about truth;" I don't see how Wikipedia can have it both ways, as long as the slogan is widely interpreted by editors to mean that Wikipedia values verifiability even at the expense of accuracy or credibility."

I was certainly not claiming myself that Wikipedia values verifiability even at the expense of accuracy or credibility, only saying that in my observation, there are many editors who read the slogan that way, and in fact applaud and exploit that misinterpretation.

I have to wonder if you actually read my whole post. To summarize: I too believe that Wikipedia is about verifiability from reliable sources. What I'm saying is that the slogan that's the topic of this thread has been misinterpreted by a number of editors to justify using unreliable sources, and that I think it would be a good thing to reword that part of policy so that people who will misinterpret it for their own purposes will find less ammunition to do so.

This is not some hypothetical idea I dreamed up; I've observed it operating on a number of articles, where the issue of reliable sources or NPOV is not RESOLVED as you say, but just goes on being fought over and over and over with no resolution in sight; the battle only stops occasionally for trips to dispute resolution pages, but since the dispute resolution process addresses issues of user conduct rather than policy questions involving content, the real issue is never resolved and just goes on and on. I can think of a dozen examples of such articles right off the top of my head, but the September 11 pages are a good place to start and should keep you busy for a good long time. Woonpton

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:44:52 EDT, WJhonson@aol.com said:

In a message dated 4/10/2008 2:02:06 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, woonpton@fastmail.fm writes:

Wikipedia values verifiability even at the expense of accuracy or credibility.>>

---

We don't. We value, verifiability FROM reliable sources. It's a teeter-totter (spelling?). If you verify something from an unreliable source, that is not Wikipoorific. If you don't verify something even though it has a source, that is not Wikipoorific either.

These things are RESOLVED on the individual articles to which they relate. Hypothetical situations don't really help resolve anything except perhaps in your own mind.

Will Johnson

**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l