== Policy suggestions ==
Most of the conflict I have had here (IMO) was due to disputes over quality of information (and citations), or the inclusion or exclusion of POV (Interpretations of said information, and citations). I'd like to propose a few things, which might make my job here (assuming I get to keep it) and yours a bit easier. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm well aware that I am a dubious source of information, and I don't think I'm giving orders (I'm pretty low on the totem pole, clearly) but I would like you to hear my policy suggestions.
*only replace text that you know to be wrong (inaccurate), and replace it with something that has a citation to back it up. If they have a reasonable difference, based on citation, allow both POV to be presented *Multiple POV '''should''' be expressed, and differing citations given. wiki is not paper. There is room for everyone to be heard, history shows us many examples of minority opinion later being found correct. There is room for all POV's so long as citations are given. *There is always room for respectable citations that differ. *The quality expected of the citations should be based on the number of editors, and thus number of citations involved. The more citations provided, the higher the standard (thus in an article with only one editor, a lower standard of citation would be expected than in an article where numerous editors are present and there are plentiful citations). *NPOV can be promoted best by providing citations of differing POV's and presenting said POV's in as impartial a manner as possible, thereby providing the highest quality, objective information possible. *I think some sort of forum for debate over POV should be made available, as there seems to be no end of desire for it among some. **editors who have proof of particular expertise should be considered a citation in and of themselves (on the subjects that they have such proof of expertise in).
p.s. I previously posted this on [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitrators]], and I also posted it on village pump and wikipedia:policy and guidelines. JackLynch
_________________________________________________________________ Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up fast & reliable Internet access with prime features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1
This would be a change from the usual blanket deletions and reversions our partisian warriors usually engage in.
From: "Ira Stoll" irastoll@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:45:58 -0600 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy suggestions
*only replace text that you know to be wrong (inaccurate), and replace it with something that has a citation to back it up. If they have a reasonable difference, based on citation, allow both POV to be presented
Fred Bauder wrote:
Generally there is a near absence of citations made in most of our wars. Mainly there is bald assertion of "authoritative" point of view, usually accompanied by repeated references to NPOV.
I'm personally a little wary of using citations overmuch. Obviously in many cases they can provide some backing for claims, but especially on contentious issues a citation can be produced to back up essentially any arbitrary claim. This includes "scientific" fields, where for example I can probably produce at least one study to back up any claim you'd care to make about anti-depressants (they work, they don't work, they sometimes work, they're better than nothing, they're worse than nothing, they're the best current solution, there are better current solutions, etc., etc.). "The devil can cite scripture for his purposes" and all that.
-Mark
Generally there is a near absence of citations made in most of our wars. Mainly there is bald assertion of "authoritative" point of view, usually accompanied by repeated references to NPOV.
Fred
From: "Ira Stoll" irastoll@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:45:58 -0600 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy suggestions
== Policy suggestions ==
Most of the conflict I have had here (IMO) was due to disputes over quality of information (and citations), or the inclusion or exclusion of POV (Interpretations of said information, and citations). I'd like to propose a few things, which might make my job here (assuming I get to keep it) and yours a bit easier. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm well aware that I am a dubious source of information, and I don't think I'm giving orders (I'm pretty low on the totem pole, clearly) but I would like you to hear my policy suggestions.
*only replace text that you know to be wrong (inaccurate), and replace it with something that has a citation to back it up. If they have a reasonable difference, based on citation, allow both POV to be presented *Multiple POV '''should''' be expressed, and differing citations given. wiki is not paper. There is room for everyone to be heard, history shows us many examples of minority opinion later being found correct. There is room for all POV's so long as citations are given. *There is always room for respectable citations that differ. *The quality expected of the citations should be based on the number of editors, and thus number of citations involved. The more citations provided, the higher the standard (thus in an article with only one editor, a lower standard of citation would be expected than in an article where numerous editors are present and there are plentiful citations). *NPOV can be promoted best by providing citations of differing POV's and presenting said POV's in as impartial a manner as possible, thereby providing the highest quality, objective information possible. *I think some sort of forum for debate over POV should be made available, as there seems to be no end of desire for it among some. **editors who have proof of particular expertise should be considered a citation in and of themselves (on the subjects that they have such proof of expertise in).
p.s. I previously posted this on [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitrators]], and I also posted it on village pump and wikipedia:policy and guidelines. JackLynch
Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up fast & reliable Internet access with prime features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Heh, enough of associate professors of philosophy or political science citing their "authority" when all they do is regurgitate what some other professor filled them up with.
Fred
From: "Ira Stoll" irastoll@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:45:58 -0600 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy suggestions
**editors who have proof of particular expertise should be considered a citation in and of themselves (on the subjects that they have such proof of expertise in).
Wikipedia is not a list of citations.
RickK
Ira Stoll irastoll@hotmail.com wrote:
*only replace text that you know to be wrong (inaccurate), and replace it with something that has a citation to back it up. If they have a reasonable difference, based on citation, allow both POV to be presented
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
Why are you repeating what I said ?
(my... would you say we happen to agree on something Rick ?)
Rick a écrit:
Wikipedia is not a list of citations.
RickK
Ira Stoll irastoll@hotmail.com wrote:
*only replace text that you know to be wrong (inaccurate), and replace it with something that has a citation to back it up. If they have a reasonable difference, based on citation, allow both POV to be presented
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21608/*http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Rick wrote:
Wikipedia is not a list of citations.
RickK
Ira Stoll irastoll@hotmail.com wrote:
*only replace text that you know to be wrong (inaccurate), and replace it with something that has a citation to back it up. If they have a reasonable difference, based on citation, allow both POV to be presented
I don't understand your POV, Rick. Are you saying that we should have _no_ citations or mention of references so readers can verify facts or quotations? If so, wouldn't that undermine the credibility of Wikipedia?
Geoff
I didn't say that. I said it is not a LIST of citations. Do we really want to have to have a citation beside every single sentence of every article?
RickK
Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote: On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Rick wrote:
Wikipedia is not a list of citations.
RickK
Ira Stoll wrote:
*only replace text that you know to be wrong (inaccurate), and replace it with something that has a citation to back it up. If they have a reasonable difference, based on citation, allow both POV to be presented
I don't understand your POV, Rick. Are you saying that we should have _no_ citations or mention of references so readers can verify facts or quotations? If so, wouldn't that undermine the credibility of Wikipedia?
Geoff
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Rick wrote:
I didn't say that. I said it is not a LIST of citations. Do we really want to have to have a citation beside every single sentence of every article?
Rick, what you originally wrote was --
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Rick wrote:
Wikipedia is not a list of citations.
RickK
And that was all. I didn't know what you meant, so I asked for a clarification, & expressed a response to a possible answer thusly:
I don't understand your POV, Rick. Are you saying that we should have _no_ citations or mention of references so readers can verify facts or quotations? If so, wouldn't that undermine the credibility of Wikipedia?
I fail to see why had to be so antagonistic in your response.
Geoff