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(a)aol.com said:
In a message dated 4/10/2008 2:02:06 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
woonpton(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --
woonpton(a)fastmail.fm
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free