In a message dated 3/30/2008 3:26:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, james.farrar@gmail.com writes:
And a photo he took of traffic on the bridge would have failed SPS, right? :)>>
---------------------------------------- That probably would have passed as we strongly encourage self-created photos, released freely.
Will
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolh...)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
WJhonson@aol.com wrote: | | In a message dated 3/30/2008 3:26:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, | james.farrar@gmail.com writes: | | And a photo he took of traffic on the bridge would have failed SPS, right? | :)>> | | | ---------------------------------------- | That probably would have passed as we strongly encourage self-created | photos, released freely. |
But would it be accepted as proof that there was activity on said bridge?
- -FFM
On 3/30/08, ffm ffm@intserverror.com wrote:
| And a photo he took of traffic on the bridge would have failed SPS, right? | :)>> | | | ---------------------------------------- | That probably would have passed as we strongly encourage self-created | photos, released freely. |
But would it be accepted as proof that there was activity on said bridge?
You could always have someone stand in front if holding a newspaper with the current date on it while traffic flows behind it. However, that might be OR. Best to use it to convince the "reliable source" to issue a retraction. Then use the retraction as a reference in the WP article.
That's the drawback with referring to secondary sources exclusively. What do you do when those sources contradict something you definitely know to be true? Strictly following WP policy, the only thing you can do is not even mention whether or not a bridge is open.
On Sunday 30 March 2008 14:10, Ron Ritzman wrote:
That's the drawback with referring to secondary sources exclusively. What do you do when those sources contradict something you definitely know to be true? Strictly following WP policy, the only thing you can do is not even mention whether or not a bridge is open.
Which is why "strictly following policy" is stupid.
I've said it before, I've said it again: we need to make it clear to newcomers that *policy is not prescriptive*. It is not normative *AT ALL*. It is merely *descriptive*.
We've got a whole generation now of newer editors who can recite "policy" forwards and backwards, but they don't actually "get it"--they don't "get" Wikipedia; they don't "get" that "policy" (to whatever extent) is merely a means to an end rather than an end in itself; they don't "get" that bureaucratic masturbation and wonkery is not helpful AT ALL.
The worst part is, these people are starting to take over.
It's frustrating.
On 3/30/08, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Sunday 30 March 2008 14:10, Ron Ritzman wrote:
That's the drawback with referring to secondary sources exclusively. What do you do when those sources contradict something you definitely know to be true? Strictly following WP policy, the only thing you can do is not even mention whether or not a bridge is open.
Which is why "strictly following policy" is stupid.
I've said it before, I've said it again: we need to make it clear to newcomers that *policy is not prescriptive*. It is not normative *AT ALL*. It is merely *descriptive*.
I would have to agree here. With the exception of a few "core policies" without which Wikipedia wouldn't be "Wikipedia" (such as NPOV and NOR) everything else is just a codification of "consensus", which can change. That's why "ignore all rules" is important.
Is "verifiability" a "core policy"? I don't know. Arguments can be made both ways. It's defiantly important as it allows "non experts" to contribute. Anybody can add anything to any article as long as they can cite a source. (which probably pisses off "experts" who see no point in sourcing something they "know to be true") It also helps keep original research out. But as I said before, the drawback is what happens when the sources contradict something that numerous reasonable people know to be true.
On 3/30/08, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
Which is why "strictly following policy" is stupid.
Well, it can sometimes lead to this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/30/08, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
Which is why "strictly following policy" is stupid.
Well, it can sometimes lead to this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human
Wow, pure comedic genius. I'd say this is a good case to IAR when it comes to POINT -- sometimes we really need to poke fun at rampant lawyering, even if it is disruptive.