On 2/28/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hi Steve, the merge process started about four months ago. It was a simple merge with no changes, and the list was informed. The aim was to get the two policies on one page, tighten the writing a little, and get rid of the word "verifiability." This was causing confusion for new editors because they thought it meant they had to check that material was true, which is what "verify" usually means, rather than simply checking that it had been published elsewhere. Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 2/28/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hi Steve, the merge process started about four months ago. It was a simple merge with no changes, and the list was informed. The aim was to get the two policies on one page, tighten the writing a little, and get rid of the word "verifiability." This was causing confusion for new editors because they thought it meant they had to check that material was true, which is what "verify" usually means, rather than simply checking that it had been published elsewhere. Sarah

On 3/1/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: Don't get me wrong, I wasn't complaining about not being notified :) I do like the change. "Verifiability" was always terribly ambiguous and misleading. It never meant you had to verify the facts. It meant that if someone else wanted to verify them, they had a starting point.

But it didn't really mean that either.

"Attributability" is much cleaner.

On 3/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: > Steve Bennett wrote: > > "Attributability" is much cleaner. > > > It looks like some kind of semantic game. Capable of being attributed? > It suggests that we don't need to make an attribution, only assert that > it is possible. Actually attributed statements (or attributions) are > then verifiable. >

Now, how do we actually define an "obsolete or deprecated" source? Does the original author have to deprecate themself, or by what standard can it be considered deprecated? Secondly, one man's obsolete is another man's current news. When current scholarship renders a half century of reputable, WP:ATT, etc citations obsolete, although some material from the older literate *still* has value, how do we mark as obsolete and deprecated older citations that are errantly being used to refute newer scholarship?

On 3/1/07, Ray Saintonge wrote: "Verify" in the old sense meant patently false material was to be given equal weight with provable facts; this allowed for "obsolete and depracated" sources were abused to give '"equal weight"

On 3/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: This has been current practice for a long time. Anyone claiming (as Jimbo periodically does) that every statement actually has to be directly or indirectly referenced is not being realistic.

On 2/28/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hmm. The Latin root of verify means "true"; amazing the policy read "verifiable, not true". Like in the English language, just what the hell did that ever mean, anyway?

How did that happen without me knowing about it? Anyway, the "key step of superceding WP:RS" as someone called it can only be done if it's included in the page. You don't want people to cite any random website. Mgm On 3/1/07, Ray Saintonge wrote: >Rob Smith wrote: > > >>On 2/28/07, Slim Virgin wrote: >> >> >>>The aim was >>>to get rid of the word "verifiability." This was causing confusion for >>>new editors because they thought it meant they had to check that >>>material was true, which is what "verify" usually means, rather than >>>simply checking that it had been published elsewhere. >>> >>> >>Hmm. The Latin root of verify means "true"; amazing the policy read >>"verifiable, not true". Like in the English language, just what the hell >>did that ever mean, anyway? >> >> >What is verifiable is what was actually said; that implies nothing >about the substantive truth of the statement. It allows us to maintain >NPOV by including verifiable but contradictory statements on both sides >of an issue. Only rarely are they both true. >

On 3/1/07, Rob Smith <nobs03(a)gmail.com> wrote: hell I think the meaning of "verifiable" is "can be verified", i.e. "can be shown to be true by referring to a secondary source". For me, there was never a problem about what "verifiability" meant...but then, I can see the rationale for the change. There's still potential for confusion. Johnleemk I always understood it to mean give equal weight to the lie if ( a ) were

Rob Smith wrote: were One begins with good faith, and most policies should work in a good faith environment first, before starting to set things up to cope with lies. Ec

I don't see why they should get so confused about that. "Verified" and "verifiable" are clearly distinct concepts. The latter only means "capable of being verified". It does not imply that anyone has in fact gone there to make that verification.

Hi Steve, the merge process started about four months ago. It was a simple merge with no changes, and the list was informed. The aim was to get the two policies on one page, tighten the writing a little, and get rid of the word "verifiability." This was causing confusion for new editors because they thought it meant they had to check that material was true, which is what "verify" usually means, rather than simply checking that it had been published elsewhere.