About time WP:RS is merged into WP:V....
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VPP#Merging_RS_and_V
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WT:RS#The_Death_of_WP:RS.3F
-- Jossi
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:47:33 -0800, "jossi fresco" jossif@gmail.com wrote:
About time WP:RS is merged into WP:V....
We could call it attribution :o)
Guy (JzG)
To say all food served should be edible is begging the question. Food by definition is things suitable to be eaten. To say something needs to be verifiable without saying what it means is not much help in practice. Just like "notable" or "encyclopedic"
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:47:33 -0800, "jossi fresco" jossif@gmail.com wrote:
I spy a dangerous fallacy. It may be that you can't _define_ Verifiability without defining "reliable source". But we can certainly _agree_ to Veriability without defining "reliable source". And in fact we have.
(One can agree that food served in a restaurant should be edible, without defining "edible".)
On Nov 18, 2007 10:20 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:47:33 -0800, "jossi fresco" jossif@gmail.com wrote:
About time WP:RS is merged into WP:V....
We could call it attribution :o)
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
??? You may have missed the discussions at RS? RS has currently no language that is not already present in WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:CITE
I think you are just reacting and lacking information.
-- Jossi
The useful content is now at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Examples, which has status of neither policy nor guideline nor essay, but as "supplement"
On 11/19/07, jossi fresco jossif@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 10:20 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:47:33 -0800, "jossi fresco" jossif@gmail.com wrote:
About time WP:RS is merged into WP:V....
We could call it attribution :o)
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
??? You may have missed the discussions at RS? RS has currently no language that is not already present in WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:CITE
I think you are just reacting and lacking information.
-- Jossi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:39:04 -0800, "jossi fresco" jossif@gmail.com wrote:
??? You may have missed the discussions at RS? RS has currently no language that is not already present in WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:CITE I think you are just reacting and lacking information.
Whereas I think I'm just joking.
Guy (JzG)
I spent time arguing about this back in July. Unfortunately, I don't have time to be on Wikipedia all the time anymore, to keep close watch on policy and guideline pages. But, my view on this matter has not changed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive_15
The concept of "reliable sources" is an important one, and one more simply understood (readability) by the newbie than verifiability. If I revert someone's edits, because they use some unreliable website (e.g. 9/11 conspiracy theory site), it's simple and clear enough to tell them that it's not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], pointing them to that page. I have spent way much more time than I wish, helping maintain pages about the 9/11 attacks, dealing with people that keep inserting unsourced or non-reliably sourced material. It's also an issue on other topics (e.g. medical/health topics) where rigorously reviewed sources (e.g. peer reviewed journal articles) should usually take priority over other sources.
You just look at the name of the page or guideline "reliable sources" and a newbie has a pretty good idea what it is about. You tell them "verifiability" and it is not obviously clear from that word, what we mean. The word "reliable" is of utmost importance. Having a page with that word ("reliable) in the title gives this expectation extra emphasis. The guideline page can reiterate what is said on WP:V, could elaborate about reliable sources, and simply tell people that "reliable" sources is important on Wikipedia.
Please do not take this page away and redirect it. Please do not make it all the more difficult for me (and others) to edit, write, and maintain articles on Wikipedia.
Regards -Aude
On Nov 18, 2007 12:47 PM, jossi fresco jossif@gmail.com wrote:
About time WP:RS is merged into WP:V....
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VPP#Merging_RS_and_V
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WT:RS#The_Death_of_WP:RS.3F
-- Jossi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/22/07, Aude audevivere@gmail.com wrote:
I have spent way much more time than I wish, helping maintain pages about the 9/11 attacks...
You work overtime, they work overtime, it's a vicious cycle. You'll eventually win if you have a policy that's worded the way you want it (regardless of what it is titled), so don't give up.
You just look at the name of the page or guideline "reliable sources" and a newbie has a pretty good idea what it is about.
Not when the newbie is of a mindset which disputes the notion that so-called "reliable sources" actually exist, which very well may be the case here.
—C.W.