On 2/27/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: Agreed. This is policy wording driven through on the basis of controversial, edit-warred articles.

On 2/27/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: Agreed. This is policy wording driven through on the basis of controversial, edit-warred articles.

Well, I hope people really are behaving well, all over the site. I don't see how anyone can be that confident. It is like it has been said: the slope of allowing the most fiercely contested articles set the policy is extremely slippery. Cutting before querying on Talk 'and do you have a source for that?' is still bad practice (still cuts across 'assume good faith', for example).

On 2/28/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: The editors on a page are not allowed to reach a consensus to include original research, just as they're not allowed to decide to ditch NPOV. NOR and NPOV do override consensus.

Personally, I think it's just about right that the policy state that information without a source may be removed. (Perhaps it should be more pointed -- disputed information without a source). Didn't Jimbo say as much in one of his responses to Seigenthaler? k

Katefan0 wrote: much Part of the problem is with the permissive word "may", which is too often read as though it were "shall". Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 3/1/06, Ray Saintonge wrote: We have to assume people can read English. Saying that an unsourced edit MAY be removed is clearly not the same as saying it MUST be or SHOULD be.

On Mar 1, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: Rules and policies are meant to be written precisely, Ray. They have precise meanings. The fact that stunningly large amounts of people have poor reading comprehension does not detract from this.

Ahh! That's the same rule that applies to sourced edit. If that's the case why bother even having the rule at all?

G'day Steve, It's prolly important to include something to the effect of if you *do* remove an unsourced edit because it's unsourced, then you're not going to get in trouble. That's something that policy's actually useful for, actually --- as is [[WP:IAR]] ...

Steve Bennett wrote: How about pointing out that instead of removing unsourced material, people can tag it with {{citation needed}} and move on?

I think, as a guideline (rather than Official Policy), we should indicate what recommended options are for editors: 1. When making contributions, provide a reference. 2. If you see information that you believe needs a reference, your options include: a) Finding one (best) b) Failing that, either: 1) Tagging with {{citation needed}} 2) Moving unreferenced material to talk page with note asking for reference 3) Asking editor who contributed material to provide a reference 4) Removing the information

This is succinct, to the point, and absolutely correct. It doesn't need development (keep things simple!). All you need now is to get rid of the nonsense in the first half of the policy page referring to what the policy isn't, and stick to saying clearly what the policy is. At present the first third of the page just tells you WP's not looking for truth!!?!?!?!?!!!

On 3/2/06, Jon <thagudearbh(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: development (keep things simple!). the policy page referring to what the policy isn't, and stick to saying clearly what the policy is. At present the first third of the page just tells you WP's not looking for truth!!?!?!?!?!!! But that's arguably the most important part of the policy, Jon. If people understand that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, then they've grasped the essence of V and NOR. Unfortunately, lots of people just don't get it, which is why the point is made right at the top of the page.

On 3/2/06, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com < slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: need And sometimes, when they do get it, they try to remove it from the policy? Why? Because they imagine that they (via Wikipedia) can actually disseminate the TRUTH, and if it so happens that the TRUTH is only found in their own head, or "everyone knows it", or (at best) it is found on some personal or blatantly propagandistic website, well, so be it. There are plenty of websites out there that disseminate the TRUTH; e.g. The Truth about Hell (http://www.av1611.org/hell.html), The Truth about George W. Bush (http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/ ), The Truth about Iraq ( http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org/), The opposite Truth about Iraq ( http://www.truthaboutwar.org/home.shtml ), The Truth about Islam ( http://www.lamblion.com/New08.php), The opposite Truth about Islam ( http://www.twf.org/), oops, a different opposite Truth about Islam ( http://islamstrueface.blogspot.com/), The Truth about Black Helicopters ( http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/), etc. - that last one is intentionally funny, by the way, unlike the others, which are only unintentionally so. One of the brilliant things about Wikipedia is that it is not so arrogant as to presume it can or should present "the TRUTH"; instead it presents verifiable information from reliable sources, which is far more useful, and almost always more truthful, than "the TRUTH". Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Verifiability and sources are great, and are a good goal to be aiming for. But if we don't have them, let's at least have make sure Wikipedia contains "true" "facts" in the meantime.

Which is exactly what I've been arguing for. Contested, unsourced citations should be dealt with. Unfortunately not.

Ok, I'm not trying to argue here, but you say it's crystal clear, and it's not. On 3/3/06, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: What does should mean? "Must"? "Should in an ideal world, but that's ok, we're in beta"? Are we talking about the Wikipedia ideal, or the minimum standard for inclusion in Wikipedia at the moment. Also, we've had numerous examples of material which has never been published by reputable sources, but are agreed by consensus as being acceptable. Information about various websites, for example. Is this in violation of the policy? Should again. But also, as discussed, "may". As everyone knows, anyone "may" make any edit they like, so what is this really saying? Is it saying that no one should have any qualms whatsoever about removing any uncited material? Or is it simply a warning against adding new information? Also, as it stands, this only covers "new material". What about unsourced existing material? "May" any editor remove that too? Editors have obligations now? This line is definitely against the Wikipedia spirit - instead of all working together to achieve something, this line makes it sounds like we're at cross purposes, so if we want to get our own way in the face of opposition, there are certain hoops to jump through. The section on verifiability vs truth is very wordy. But here's a better example of crud: -- Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so. -- What is this saying? "You can cite a dodgy source as long as a better source exists". How would you know if the better source exists? Why not just cite that? What if another editor doesn't believe that a better source exists? It seems to me that if a better source exists, you haven't achieved much by citing a dodgy source - so why bother with this exception? There are other problems with the policy as it stands, however. Examples: - A reputable source publishes something in error (and later retracts it). What then? - A source is cited, but does not support the claim made. - A made-up source is cited - how to handle this situation? In short, the policy very wordily attempts to define the notion of "verifiability" and gives examples of clear-cut situations of verifiable and unverifiable information, but doesn't give much help in applying this approach to everyday Wikipedia daily live, and doesn't help sort out borderline or unusual cases at all. Steve Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 3/2/06, Jon &lt;thagudearbh(a)yahoo.co.uk&gt; wrote: But that's arguably the most important part of the policy, Jon. If people understand that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, then they've grasped the essence of V and NOR. Unfortunately, lots of people just don't get it, which is why the point is made right at the top of the page.

On 3/1/06, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I also couldn't come up with a more ambiguous expression if I tried. Two different meanings: 1) An unsourced edit could end up being removed - be warned 2) You have the permission to remove unsourced edits How can we better word this?

On 3/2/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) &lt;alphasigmax(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Why do we keep coming back to this strange policy? It doesn't make much sense (95% of Wikipedia is "likely to be removed without warning"?), and it certainly doesn't reflect current practice.

This situation is starting to remind me of police who tell the public "if you do X or Y, you WILL be caught", when the actual apprehension rate is vanishingly small.

Is it not silly to have the most fundamental policy we have be so far removed from a) current practice, and b) what we actually want? We want sources, but we also want material to be added - we don't actually remove material except as a last resort. Maybe we need something like: "When considering removing unsourced material, take into account the likely factual accuracy of the material, the possible harm that could be done by leaving it, and the chance that a subsequent editor could find a source for it. Libellous material or copyright violations aside, it is polite to move the material to the talk page with an explanation for your removal."

Is undetected original research a big problem in practice?

Is this policy going to have any effect on undetected original research?

This entirely misses the point of the policy. We don't publish material that is "factually correct." We publish material that other reputable publications have published. If we leave it to individual editors to decide what is "factually correct," then we're into original-research territory, subjective views, people's prejudices, people's ignorance. Where our judgment comes in is in deciding which sources are the most trustworthy in the given area i.e. the most likely to be "factually correct." But we're always one step removed from that idea ourselves. The criterion for entry into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Regarding the relationship between NOR and V, they are inextricably linked, in that the only way to show you're not doing OR is to cite a source.

Steve's version is definitely an improvement. "It is polite" is still a little wimpy; "editors are strongly advised" might be better. I would

also make a small addition to have the one phrase read "the possible harm that could be done by leaving or removing it." Another thing that

could be taken into account is the nature of the material to reflect that the standards applied to commentary on video games will be much lower than those applied to biographies of real people.

What needs to be stressed is a balanced approach to editing. For some editors enthusiasm far outstroips judgement., and techniques that would moderate their behaviour would be welcome.

I think where people get (sometimes justifiably) paranoid is that the writing does have to be careful not to introduce new statements inadvertantly. For instance, "B, A, and therefore C" is not just a rhetorical improvement on "B, A, and C". It's an interesting exercise, for instance, to update the carefully-chosen words of an old 1911EB entry without changing the original author's meaning.

What about online sources that go off-line? I've had it happen several times, turning a completely verifiable article into something that can't be verified through said sources anymore. How are we supposed to fight that?

What about online sources that go off-line? I've had it happen several times, turning a completely verifiable article into something that can't be verified through said sources anymore. How are we supposed to fight that?

On 3/1/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm &lt;macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: You reference it with the name and URL of the page, and the date accessed.

Or editors who remove references they don't like from articles then nominate them for deletion as unverifiable. When bailed up on it, they say "but the sources are crap." What can practically be done about this?

References SHOULD NEVER BE REMOVED unless alternative references for the referenced facts are found or the information those references support is removed from the article. To do otherwise is completely against the spirit of our verifiability and sourcing policies and practise.

But drive-by edits are not policy, and are never going to be policy, in contentious matters. It is completely sound policy that edits which cannot, in the medium term, be supported by good sources cannot stand on the page. My concern, and I see it too often, is that material is cut because it is unsourced, and only because of that.

The fact that proper efforts to get consensus versions of page cannot be so tightly defined - where's the acronym? - does not mean that the policy that we edit collectively is trumped. We need to take care on this. The 'instrumentalist' view, that policy is to be used to rule one's own edits in, and the edits of others out, is a menace, in fact.

On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevage(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: And we were asking for proof that policy was being largely shaped by those who work on contentious, war-zone articles?

I am somewhat staggered that with the number of times that terms like "verifiability" and "no original research" are bandied about, we can not as a community agree on two simple matters: 1. Should we remove material which would be perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia if only the (presumed existing) source was actually cited? 2. Should we remove material which presents verifiable facts simply because those facts have not been published by another source? In the first case, I'm talking about removing common knowledge or non-contentious material which no one is actually disputing.

In the second, I'm talking about removing information like content of computer games, movies, or websites, where sufficient information can be given to make it verifiable, but for which no secondary source exists.

These are pretty fundamental questions, but I've only seen a small amount of discusson on them (and lots of disagreement about other issues which arises from unstated differences of opinion on these issues).

Slim Virgin wrote My concern, and I see it too often, is that material is cut because it is unsourced, and only because of that. The 'instrumentalist' view, that policy is to be used to rule one's own edits in, and the edits of others out, is a menace, in fact.

Realistically, when is this a problem, Charles? I confess to being bewildered when people complain about the need to find sources. If their edit is correct, why can't they source it?

On 3/1/06, charles matthews &lt;charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com&gt; wrote: Realistically, when is this a problem, Charles? I confess to being bewildered when people complain about the need to find sources. If their edit is correct, why can't they source it?

On 2/27/06, The Cunctator &lt;cunctator(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Agreed. This is policy wording driven through on the basis of controversial, edit-warred articles.

On 2/28/06, The Cunctator &lt;cunctator(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Or even take a look at some old-school versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid… What a huge difference in tone. Talk about the creep of formalism and distrust.