Steve Block wrote
Anyway, what I think you are saying, to me, goes against the grain of the verifiability policy. We aren't supposed to sift the truth from the puff, are we? We simply present information as it is presented in the source.
Nothing (except NPOV, I guess) ranks higher than some sort of good taste about what to include. We're always selective in quoting.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Steve Block wrote
Anyway, what I think you are saying, to me, goes against the grain of the verifiability policy. We aren't supposed to sift the truth from the puff, are we? We simply present information as it is presented in the source.
Nothing (except NPOV, I guess) ranks higher than some sort of good taste about what to include. We're always selective in quoting.
That's not the point I was making, sorry but you've taken me out of context. I was attempting to point out that we can't edit articles because the information may not be true. We edit the articles because the sources don't reflect it. If source a actually alleges b did c, we cite it even if it isn't true, unless some other reason prevents it. My understanding was that we didn't remove it based on the fact we didn't believe it to be true.