There is a proposed rewrite of the Verifiability policy on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp&a... .
So far it has had positive reviews, and there have been a number of amendments made as a result of its exposure on the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability page and on IRC.
The intention is to restate current policy much more succinctly, and so that the policy can easily be used to maintain and improve standards.
Further comments would be welcome. The intention is that, after exposing the proposed rewrite here, and making any improvements suggested as a result, it would be mentioned on the Village Pump, with a view to it then becoming live.
Kind regards
Jon
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo.
On 1/4/06, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
There is a proposed rewrite of the Verifiability policy on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp&a... .
So far it has had positive reviews, and there have been a number of amendments made as a result of its exposure on the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability page and on IRC.
Please note too that it has also had objections, and because it's one of only three editorial policies, and the one dealing with sourrces, it's important that no loopholes be opened in a drive to be succinct.
Sarah
The redraft is progressing slowly so that as many concerns with the wording as possible can be dealt with. Where there is concern (objection seems too strong a word) over the redraft, the same really applies to the policy as currently worded anyway (since, after all, it is a redraft, not a fundamental change).
The redraft does, however, clarify existing practice, and I think it leaves no loopholes - by being straightforward and not allowing for complicated exceptions, and by having fewer words to argue about, loopholes are eliminated.
Of course, the wording is, no doubt, imperfect, and suggestions for taking this forward would, I'm sure, be welcome by all,
Jon jguk
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote: On 1/4/06, Jon wrote:
There is a proposed rewrite of the Verifiability policy on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp&a... .
So far it has had positive reviews, and there have been a number of amendments made as a result of its exposure on the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability page and on IRC.
Please note too that it has also had objections, and because it's one of only three editorial policies, and the one dealing with sourrces, it's important that no loopholes be opened in a drive to be succinct.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
On 1/4/06, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The redraft does, however, clarify existing practice, and I think it leaves no loopholes - by being straightforward and not allowing for complicated exceptions, and by having fewer words to argue about, loopholes are eliminated.
Jon, tightening wording can eliminate loopholes but it can also introduce them. I haven't looked at the draft for a few days, but when I last looked, I was concerned to see certain examples missing. The current wording of that policy page has stood in the way of nonsense many, many times, so I want to urge caution about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Succint is good, but it's not an end in itself.
Sarah
There are edge cases in this that concern me a little. Facts should be from reputable sources? Not quite. They should be from appropriate sources. The British National Party is not reputable and (like even some reputable British political parties) cannot be expected to publish accurate membership figures and certainly cannot be cited on issues such as social concerns of people living in Sheffield. It is a perfectly appropriate source, however, for the wording of a campaign address given by its by-election candidate in Sheffield, although it must be attributed if the text has not been published elsewhere. If one is writing about the British National Party's political strategy in South Yorkshire then appropriate reference to material published by the party itself (say the party's official mailshot delivered free by Royal Mail during the by-election or words obtained from the party's official website) may be used with caution, as long as material published solely by the party is not given undue weight and is treated as campaigning material and not a supporting source for factual claims made in the material.
Currently I'd feel confident in arguing for appropriate use of such material, but it may be that we want to employ higher standards and omit such material altogether.
On 1/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
There are edge cases in this that concern me a little. Facts should be from reputable sources? Not quite. They should be from appropriate sources. The British National Party is not reputable and (like even some reputable British political parties) cannot be expected to publish accurate membership figures and certainly cannot be cited on issues such as social concerns of people living in Sheffield. It is a perfectly appropriate source, however, for the wording of a campaign address given by its by-election candidate in Sheffield ...
Tony, the British National Party and similar organizations may be used as sources of information about themselves, but may not be used as sources regarding anything or anyone else. See [[WP:RS]] under "Partisan websites." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Partisan_websites
The same guideline applies to any kind of self-published information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources
Sarah
Not really a bad idea, but sometimes I come across articles that used to have sources, but died because SOMEONE closed down the website the sources came from. If we were to police such a thing, we'd have much more deletions of stuff that could easily be re-verified.
I think someone should be notified before entire article which used to have sources end up deleted because of this so they can recheck.
Mgm