This section of the BLP is kind of rot: ---- Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. ----
What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick google search? Wouldn't a better formulation be: ---- Editors should add proper sources to contentious material about living persons. If such a source cannot be found, the material should be removed. Where the material is derogatory and unsourceable, relies on improper sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research), the three revert rule does not apply.
Derogatory opinions about living persons on user and talk pages must follow the above rules. Contentious or negative biographical material on user and talk pages must be verifiable. If properly contextualized, contentious material from questionable sources may be discussed, but the problems with the material and the sources must be clearly identified, and such material may be removed if the discussion has ended or is not contributing to the development of the article. When in doubt, derogatory material that is not properly sourceable should be removed. ----
The Cunctator wrote:
This section of the BLP is kind of rot:
Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages.
What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick google search? Wouldn't a better formulation be:
Editors should add proper sources to contentious material about living persons. If such a source cannot be found, the material should be removed. Where the material is derogatory and unsourceable, relies on improper sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research), the three revert rule does not apply.
Derogatory opinions about living persons on user and talk pages must follow the above rules. Contentious or negative biographical material on user and talk pages must be verifiable. If properly contextualized, contentious material from questionable sources may be discussed, but the problems with the material and the sources must be clearly identified, and such material may be removed if the discussion has ended or is not contributing to the development of the article. When in doubt, derogatory material that is not properly sourceable should be removed.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Your idea may be fine in theory but isn't the burden on the author to adequatly source his articles to begin with? One would think he would be in the best position to do so. Further, such a change would allow material to remain in the article far too long because we all know that most folks won't go the the trouble of finding the sources. Of course, not all sources are available via a "quick google search."
Just my thoughts,
Jody
On 7/11/07, JodyB jodybwiki@bellsouth.net wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
This section of the BLP is kind of rot:
Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages.
What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick google search? Wouldn't a better formulation be:
Editors should add proper sources to contentious material about living persons. If such a source cannot be found, the material should be removed. Where the material is derogatory and unsourceable, relies on improper sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research), the three revert rule does not apply.
Derogatory opinions about living persons on user and talk pages must follow the above rules. Contentious or negative biographical material on user and talk pages must be verifiable. If properly contextualized, contentious material from questionable sources may be discussed, but the problems with the material and the sources must be clearly identified, and such material may be removed if the discussion has ended or is not contributing to the development of the article. When in doubt, derogatory material that is not properly sourceable should be removed.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Your idea may be fine in theory but isn't the burden on the author to adequatly source his articles to begin with? One would think he would be in the best position to do so. Further, such a change would allow material to remain in the article far too long because we all know that most folks won't go the the trouble of finding the sources. Of course, not all sources are available via a "quick google search."
The problem is that Bios of Living Persons policy is too draconian -- there's no flexibility in it as stated. As stated it's a pretty good standard for new additions, but it encourages people to lazily delete massive amounts of content from existing articles long after material was added.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 7/11/07, JodyB jodybwiki@bellsouth.net wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
This section of the BLP is kind of rot:
Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages.
What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick google search? Wouldn't a better formulation be:
Editors should add proper sources to contentious material about living persons. If such a source cannot be found, the material should be removed. Where the material is derogatory and unsourceable, relies on improper sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research), the three revert rule does not apply.
Derogatory opinions about living persons on user and talk pages must follow the above rules. Contentious or negative biographical material on user and talk pages must be verifiable. If properly contextualized, contentious material from questionable sources may be discussed, but the problems with the material and the sources must be clearly identified, and such material may be removed if the discussion has ended or is not contributing to the development of the article. When in doubt, derogatory material that is not properly sourceable should be removed.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Your idea may be fine in theory but isn't the burden on the author to adequatly source his articles to begin with? One would think he would be in the best position to do so. Further, such a change would allow material to remain in the article far too long because we all know that most folks won't go the the trouble of finding the sources. Of course, not all sources are available via a "quick google search."
The problem is that Bios of Living Persons policy is too draconian -- there's no flexibility in it as stated. As stated it's a pretty good standard for new additions, but it encourages people to lazily delete massive amounts of content from existing articles long after material was added.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm not sure it's too draconian especially when the issue is "contentious" material. While I agree that we should encourage all people to help with sourcing, the onus is still on the author to get it right and get sourced right too. Unfortunately, there is no way to codify and encouragement. There's also no way I can think of that would "grandfather" in contentious material dating from before BLP was implemented.
JodyB wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
The problem is that Bios of Living Persons policy is too draconian -- there's no flexibility in it as stated. As stated it's a pretty good standard for new additions, but it encourages people to lazily delete massive amounts of content from existing articles long after material was added.
I'm not sure it's too draconian especially when the issue is "contentious" material. While I agree that we should encourage all people to help with sourcing, the onus is still on the author to get it right and get sourced right too. Unfortunately, there is no way to codify and encouragement. There's also no way I can think of that would "grandfather" in contentious material dating from before BLP was implemented.
I don't think that any realistic editor expects a soft ride for contentious or derogatory material. There will always be need to be unrelenting about that. Determining whether something is contentious or derogatory should always be the question that a reviewer asks himself about a libing person article.
If the answer is "No," a more relaxed approach can be taken. Sure the onus ultimately falls on the cotributing author to establish sources for information, but using that as the only excuse for removing information is just being a dick, or trying to make a Point.
Ec
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:07:22 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that Bios of Living Persons policy is too draconian -- there's no flexibility in it as stated. As stated it's a pretty good standard for new additions, but it encourages people to lazily delete massive amounts of content from existing articles long after material was added.
The problem, if anything, is that people are sometimes too stupid to realise that what they are doing is simply WRONG without it being spelled out in words of one syllable.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/11/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
The problem, if anything, is that people are sometimes too stupid to realise that what they are doing is simply WRONG without it being spelled out in words of one syllable.
Guy (JzG)
The trick is to figure out this applies to both sides.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:19:48 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The trick is to figure out this applies to both sides.
The trick is to err on the side of caution without stepping over the line into hagiography.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/11/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:19:48 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The trick is to figure out this applies to both sides.
The trick is to err on the side of caution without stepping over the line into hagiography.
We should err on the side of being right.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:33:42 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The trick is to err on the side of caution without stepping over the line into hagiography.
We should err on the side of being right.
So they always say. And continue saying after we block them.
But hey, we're not going to agree on this one. Take it up with Jimbo, he's the one that persuaded me to be small-c conservative in respect of our effect on living individuals.
Guy (JzG)
What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick google search?
The burden of proof is always on the person adding the information.
"Source" does not mean "somewhere which can be used to verify the information", it means "the place where the information came from". Only the person that added the information actually knows the source, so they should be the one citing sources. The whole idea of adding sources to existing articles is completely backward. We need to work on getting people to actually *use* reliable sources, not just cite them. If people were actually using the sources then they could cite them as they went along with almost no additional work.
On 7/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The burden of proof is always on the person adding the information.
Yes, but this is a collaborative project. The person removing the information should insure that he or she is not removing some widely known fact that could be sourced with a minute or two of research. Our priority should be to insure that biographical articles are accurately sourced, but in doing so, we shouldn't forget that our mission is to construct an encyclopedia, and removing information that belongs in an accurate, balanced, NPOV article doesn't help that mission any. No harm is done in encouraging people to remember the second part of that sentence while rigorously enforcing the first.
On 7/11/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The burden of proof is always on the person adding the information.
Yes, but this is a collaborative project. The person removing the information should insure that he or she is not removing some widely known fact that could be sourced with a minute or two of research. Our priority should be to insure that biographical articles are accurately sourced, but in doing so, we shouldn't forget that our mission is to construct an encyclopedia, and removing information that belongs in an accurate, balanced, NPOV article doesn't help that mission any. No harm is done in encouraging people to remember the second part of that sentence while rigorously enforcing the first.
Right. I'm not trying to eviscerate the rigorousness of the ban on defamatory material but I am trying to change language that encourages non-collaborative behavior and rewards assumptions of bad faith.
On 7/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick google search?
The burden of proof is always on the person adding the information.
That doesn't make sense. If someone adds "the famous mass murderer Charles Manson" to an article, deleting that addition because it doesn't have a source is silly.
"Source" does not mean "somewhere which can be used to verify the information", it means "the place where the information came from". Only the person that added the information actually knows the source, so they should be the one citing sources. The whole idea of adding sources to existing articles is completely backward. We need to work on getting people to actually *use* reliable sources, not just cite them. If people were actually using the sources then they could cite them as they went along with almost no additional work.
In the real world of editing Wikipedia, source does not always mean "the place where the information came from". It often means "somewhere which can be used to verify the information".
For example, a lot of people get knowledge of things from television, friends, parents, family, local newspapers, blogs, teachers, etc., all of which are unacceptable or difficult to reference.
Maybe you only learn things from proper sources, but if so, you would be the exception.
For example, a lot of people get knowledge of things from television, friends, parents, family, local newspapers, blogs, teachers, etc., all of which are unacceptable or difficult to reference.
Maybe you only learn things from proper sources, but if so, you would be the exception.
I know plenty of things that I haven't got from reliable sources. I don't use that knowledge to write Wikipedia articles, though. Writing an article based on personal knowledge violates our policy of only using reliable sources.
We didn't used to worry about sources, which is why we have a large number of unsourced articles. For those, we have no choice but to find sources after the fact and add them in. Newly written articles (and information added to existing articles) should come directly from a reliable source and that source should be cited at the time the information is added. We need to stop being so tolerant of people adding information without citing sources.
On 7/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
For example, a lot of people get knowledge of things from television, friends, parents, family, local newspapers, blogs, teachers, etc., all of which are unacceptable or difficult to reference.
Maybe you only learn things from proper sources, but if so, you would be the exception.
I know plenty of things that I haven't got from reliable sources. I don't use that knowledge to write Wikipedia articles, though. Writing an article based on personal knowledge violates our policy of only using reliable sources.
That is unreasonable, unenforceable, and not in any way what the policy states.
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
That's very different from "If you didn't learn something from a source you can properly reference, you may not add that knowledge to Wikipedia, even if such a source exists."
Thomas Dalton wrote:
That is unreasonable, unenforceable, and not in any way what the policy states.
It's perfectly reasonable and perfectly enforceable. Policy can, and should, change.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Maybe, but it should only change to make things better. I don't think this, as it stands, would.
On 7/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 7/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
For example, a lot of people get knowledge of things from
television,
friends, parents, family, local newspapers, blogs, teachers, etc.,
all
of which are unacceptable or difficult to reference.
Maybe you only learn things from proper sources, but if so, you
would
be the exception.
I know plenty of things that I haven't got from reliable sources. I don't use that knowledge to write Wikipedia articles, though. Writing an article based on personal knowledge violates our policy of only using reliable sources.
That is unreasonable, unenforceable, and not in any way what the policy states.
It's perfectly reasonable and perfectly enforceable. Policy can, and should, change.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're writing, but how does one discern between a contribution gleaned from non-reliable sources (but with a reference) and a contribution gleaned from that reference?
The Cunctator wrote:
On 7/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick google search?
The burden of proof is always on the person adding the information.
That doesn't make sense. If someone adds "the famous mass murderer Charles Manson" to an article, deleting that addition because it doesn't have a source is silly.
"Source" does not mean "somewhere which can be used to verify the information", it means "the place where the information came from". Only the person that added the information actually knows the source, so they should be the one citing sources. The whole idea of adding sources to existing articles is completely backward. We need to work on getting people to actually *use* reliable sources, not just cite them. If people were actually using the sources then they could cite them as they went along with almost no additional work.
In the real world of editing Wikipedia, source does not always mean "the place where the information came from". It often means "somewhere which can be used to verify the information".
For example, a lot of people get knowledge of things from television, friends, parents, family, local newspapers, blogs, teachers, etc., all of which are unacceptable or difficult to reference.
Maybe you only learn things from proper sources, but if so, you would be the exception.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I learn things that way, but I sure don't put it into articles! If I hear something interesting from a friend, and think it might work for an article, I go -look it up-. For one thing, I've more than once found out the information from such a source was dead wrong (or at best incomplete), and even when true, that gives you a source to cite besides "my friend told me." Wikinews is damn strict on citing sources, from what I've seen there (you make a sourceless edit that adds anything substantial, it gets removed, period, no matter how plausible), and I don't think that's a bad idea. The -only- edits that should happen without sourcing are minor copyedits (spelling/grammar correction, etc.), or edits for clarity or flow that move or rearrange but do not add material. Any addition should be sourced.
And how hard -is- it to source that Charles Manson is a mass murderer? Remember, the world is not American, and someone in another country may not have the first clue who Charles Manson is, just as I don't know who most of their country's national (anti)heroes are. Common knowledge, in the context of the entire world, usually isn't.
On 7/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick google search?
The burden of proof is always on the person adding the information.
Not to the extent of removeing the material.
"Source" does not mean "somewhere which can be used to verify the information", it means "the place where the information came from". Only the person that added the information actually knows the source, so they should be the one citing sources.
However we use the word references rather than sources.
The whole idea of adding sources to existing articles is completely backward. We need to work on getting people to actually *use* reliable sources, not just cite them. If people were actually using the sources then they could cite them as they went along with almost no additional work.
Depends. Refing [[Stroudwater Navigation]] was a pain in the neck even though I had the main source in front of me the whole time.
[[Canal#Features]] would be much more of a pain. The problem is that it jumps between levels of complexity so some you would be looking at citeing from a school textbook and others from wighter tomes.
The effort required is such that if I was required to do it that article would still look like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canal&oldid=132489555
Which isn't really B class despite the claims on the talk page (I would argue the current version is just about).
Depends. Refing [[Stroudwater Navigation]] was a pain in the neck even though I had the main source in front of me the whole time.
[[Canal#Features]] would be much more of a pain. The problem is that it jumps between levels of complexity so some you would be looking at citeing from a school textbook and others from wighter tomes.
The effort required is such that if I was required to do it that article would still look like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canal&oldid=132489555
Which isn't really B class despite the claims on the talk page (I would argue the current version is just about).
You don't have to specify exactly which source each statement comes from (although it is preferred where possible). Just listing the references at the end of the article would be acceptable.
On 7/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Depends. Refing [[Stroudwater Navigation]] was a pain in the neck even though I had the main source in front of me the whole time.
[[Canal#Features]] would be much more of a pain. The problem is that it jumps between levels of complexity so some you would be looking at citeing from a school textbook and others from wighter tomes.
The effort required is such that if I was required to do it that article would still look like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canal&oldid=132489555
Which isn't really B class despite the claims on the talk page (I would argue the current version is just about).
You don't have to specify exactly which source each statement comes from (although it is preferred where possible). Just listing the references at the end of the article would be acceptable.
Wouldn't work. I know that stuff is in books be remembering which childrens book on canals (most stuff above that level will assume you know it and start talking about specific cases) I originaly ran across it. Yes the section could be refed but you would better spending your time sorting out the lack of a mention of the indian canals and the failure to mention the ship canal building boom.
You don't have to specify exactly which source each statement comes from (although it is preferred where possible). Just listing the references at the end of the article would be acceptable.
Wouldn't work. I know that stuff is in books be remembering which childrens book on canals (most stuff above that level will assume you know it and start talking about specific cases) I originaly ran across it. Yes the section could be refed but you would better spending your time sorting out the lack of a mention of the indian canals and the failure to mention the ship canal building boom.
I don't understand. I'm talking about the details of where to mention the sources, and you're responding with what appears to be (you seem to have missed the end of the second sentence off in addition to some typos, so I'm guessing at what you're trying to say) an argument about not needing to cite common knowledge, which is another debate entirely. When making a counter argument, please make sure it is actually related to the original argument.
On 7/12/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand. I'm talking about the details of where to mention the sources, and you're responding with what appears to be (you seem to have missed the end of the second sentence off in addition to some typos, so I'm guessing at what you're trying to say) an argument about not needing to cite common knowledge, which is another debate entirely. When making a counter argument, please make sure it is actually related to the original argument.
Where to cite has nothing to do with my original argument (apart from anything else citeing at the end only is largely meaningless since you can't tell what is and isn't cited).
Where to cite has nothing to do with my original argument (apart from anything else citeing at the end only is largely meaningless since you can't tell what is and isn't cited).
Your argument was that you had two sources which made it complicated to show which statements came from which. That is entirely about where to put the references. You can tell what is and what isn't cited by reading the sources.
You gave two examples, in both of which you said you had the sources, so why can't you cite them?
On 7/12/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Your argument was that you had two sources which made it complicated to show which statements came from which.
Nope can deal with that. Statements do not directly come from sources (on any scale that would be a copyvio See Folsom v. Marsh).
Sources are there to back up facts.
That is entirely about where to put the references. You can tell what is and what isn't cited by reading the sources.
You gave two examples, in both of which you said you had the sources, so why can't you cite them?
I didn't say that. I know the information could be refed but I don't off hand know an exact location. Nor do I care to go looking at this time. So your choice is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canal&oldid=144043755
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canal&oldid=132489555
You position currently favours the latter.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick google search?
The burden of proof is always on the person adding the information.
"Source" does not mean "somewhere which can be used to verify the information", it means "the place where the information came from". Only the person that added the information actually knows the source, so they should be the one citing sources. The whole idea of adding sources to existing articles is completely backward. We need to work on getting people to actually *use* reliable sources, not just cite them. If people were actually using the sources then they could cite them as they went along with almost no additional work.
This seems pretty at odds with the way Wikipedia writes articles. Yes, the original author *ought* to reference his or her article when written. He or she also *ought* to write it in good English, with a nice introduction, include relevant facts without undue weighting, and so on. However often many of these things aren't done, or are done imperfectly, so later editors fix them. As long as the article is referenced to material that can corroborate its content, I don't see why it makes a different whether they're the same references the original author used. The point of references is to corroborate the content, not as some sort of metaphysical trail of editing. If someone was born in 1855, and we have a reference stating they were born in 1855, what does it matter whether it's the *same* reference the original author of the article got the date out of?
-Mark
On 7/14/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick google search?
The burden of proof is always on the person adding the information.
"Source" does not mean "somewhere which can be used to verify the information", it means "the place where the information came from". Only the person that added the information actually knows the source, so they should be the one citing sources. The whole idea of adding sources to existing articles is completely backward. We need to work on getting people to actually *use* reliable sources, not just cite them. If people were actually using the sources then they could cite them as they went along with almost no additional work.
This seems pretty at odds with the way Wikipedia writes articles. Yes, the original author *ought* to reference his or her article when written. He or she also *ought* to write it in good English, with a nice introduction, include relevant facts without undue weighting, and so on. However often many of these things aren't done, or are done imperfectly, so later editors fix them. As long as the article is referenced to material that can corroborate its content, I don't see why it makes a different whether they're the same references the original author used. The point of references is to corroborate the content, not as some sort of metaphysical trail of editing. If someone was born in 1855, and we have a reference stating they were born in 1855, what does it matter whether it's the *same* reference the original author of the article got the date out of?
-Mark
Sure, if it's true it may be in more than one source, or if it's from a primary source, it will read the same in more than one source. Asking that same fact be verified by same source gets into mind reading, and is not possible.
Yes, the point of references is to corroborate the content.
KP
On 7/11/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick google search?
Then it shouldn't be any problem to source it...?
-Luna
On 7/11/07, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick google search?
Then it shouldn't be any problem to source it...?
Exactly. Shouldn't that be preferable to deleting it?
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:38:06 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Then it shouldn't be any problem to source it...?
Exactly. Shouldn't that be preferable to deleting it?
"There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimmy Wales.
Sure, adequately sourcing it is preferable, but if it's a choice between waiting for a source or removing it, removing is a better option. Even if you put it back in with a source ten minutes later.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/11/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
"There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimmy Wales.
Not consitant with what Mr Wales has been up to [[Talk:Che Guevara]]. It's a fun read.
Sure, adequately sourcing it is preferable, but if it's a choice between waiting for a source or removing it, removing is a better option. Even if you put it back in with a source ten minutes later.
Depends. Removeing the vast majority of our articles is not a good idea.
On 7/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
"There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimmy Wales.
Not consitant with what Mr Wales has been up to [[Talk:Che Guevara]]. It's a fun read.
I'm quite certain Che Guevera is not a living person.
On 7/11/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
"There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimmy Wales.
Not consitant with what Mr Wales has been up to [[Talk:Che Guevara]]. It's a fun read.
I'm quite certain Che Guevera is not a living person.
Re read the statement the comment about living people is bolted on at the end. So that should be applied to everything.
On 11/07/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
"There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimmy Wales.
Not consitant with what Mr Wales has been up to [[Talk:Che Guevara]]. It's a fun read.
I'm quite certain Che Guevera is not a living person.
"This is true of all information".
On 11/07/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
"There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimmy Wales.
Not consitant with what Mr Wales has been up to [[Talk:Che Guevara]]. It's a fun read.
I'm quite certain Che Guevera is not a living person.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"This is true of all information,"
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:05:44 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
"There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimmy Wales.
Not consitant with what Mr Wales has been up to [[Talk:Che Guevara]]. It's a fun read.
RfC is the second door on your left down the hall.
Sure, adequately sourcing it is preferable, but if it's a choice between waiting for a source or removing it, removing is a better option. Even if you put it back in with a source ten minutes later.
Depends. Removeing the vast majority of our articles is not a good idea.
Depends. Sometimes it's a great idea. But hard cases make bad law.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/13/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:05:44 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
"There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimmy Wales.
Not consitant with what Mr Wales has been up to [[Talk:Che Guevara]]. It's a fun read.
RfC is the second door on your left down the hall.
Um what for? The last I checked the debate over Mr Wales's stuff was over pending him provideing any sources. There is a secondary debate going on but that isn't really relivant to the article.
Depends. Sometimes it's a great idea.
No it isn't.
But hard cases make bad law.
If you regard the majority of our articles as hard changes I would suggest you are useing the wrong law.
On 7/11/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
but if it's a choice between waiting for a source or removing it, removing is a better option.
The problem is too many editors act as if these were their only possible choices in every scenario.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:30:35 -0400, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is too many editors act as if these were their only possible choices in every scenario.
Ah, now that is an important and very valid point. Nuanced solutions are very often the best of all, but sadly the polar opposites of opinion tend to be the most strident so nuanced solutions often do not get a look-in. My friend Mr. Sidaway is quite good at nuanced, when he's given a chance.
Guy (JzG)
Luna wrote:
On 7/11/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick google search?
Then it shouldn't be any problem to source it...?
Exactly, and anybody can do that much; it doesn't need to be the original contributor.
Ec