In a message dated 4/28/2009 1:15:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com writes:
We have always placed the burden of proof-of-notability on the
contributing
author, not on the rest of the AfD posters. That's been true across
each
AfD for notability that I've seen. I doubt it's going to change. I
did
not create that, it's just the way it is.
Will Johnson
I disagree. To delete requires a consensus to delete. That is, a consensus of people believe the article has no place on wikipedia.>>
----------------- You can't disagree, because I never said what you are disagreeing to. Read what I said more clearly and you will see that I'm not speaking about a consensus, nor a lack of consensus. I'm not talking about deletion, nor keeping. I'm speaking of *who* has the burden of proof to show "notability", or the lack of notability. The author? Or everyone else? We've always recognized that it's the contributing author who has that burden-of-proof.
Will Johnson
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621499x1201450105/aol?redir=http... ilExcScore428NO62)
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/28/2009 1:15:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com writes:
We have always placed the burden of proof-of-notability on the
contributing
author, not on the rest of the AfD posters. That's been true across
each
AfD for notability that I've seen. I doubt it's going to change. I
did
not create that, it's just the way it is.
Will Johnson
I disagree. To delete requires a consensus to delete. That is, a consensus of people believe the article has no place on wikipedia.>>
You can't disagree, because I never said what you are disagreeing to. Read what I said more clearly and you will see that I'm not speaking about a consensus, nor a lack of consensus. I'm not talking about deletion, nor keeping. I'm speaking of *who* has the burden of proof to show "notability", or the lack of notability. The author? Or everyone else? We've always recognized that it's the contributing author who has that burden-of-proof.
Will Johnson
Oh, I assure you I can disagree. I can disagree with almost anything.
I disagree that the burden of proof is on the contributing author. The burden is on those wishing to delete something to achieve a consensus to delete. What level of "evidence" or "proof" will convince a consensus of wikipedians is up to the wikipedians participating. I suspect many people will be satisfied by different things.
2009/4/28 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
I disagree that the burden of proof is on the contributing author. The burden is on those wishing to delete something to achieve a consensus to delete. What level of "evidence" or "proof" will convince a consensus of wikipedians is up to the wikipedians participating. I suspect many people will be satisfied by different things.
The burden of proof has to be on the author. The person wishing to delete it would have to prove a negative, which is borderline impossible (in this case, anyway). How great the burden is is another question and, as you say, that depends on who is taking part in the discussion, but there is no choice about who the burden is on.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/28 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
I disagree that the burden of proof is on the contributing author. The burden is on those wishing to delete something to achieve a consensus to delete. What level of "evidence" or "proof" will convince a consensus of wikipedians is up to the wikipedians participating. I suspect many people will be satisfied by different things.
The burden of proof has to be on the author. The person wishing to delete it would have to prove a negative, which is borderline impossible (in this case, anyway). How great the burden is is another question and, as you say, that depends on who is taking part in the discussion, but there is no choice about who the burden is on.
If that is true, the burden would be on those wishing to retain, rather than the "author" (which is a concept best left out of wikipedia).
But, as long as a consensus, with good reason, wish to retain, any burden is discharged.
doc wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/28 doc:
I disagree that the burden of proof is on the contributing author. The burden is on those wishing to delete something to achieve a consensus to delete. What level of "evidence" or "proof" will convince a consensus of wikipedians is up to the wikipedians participating. I suspect many people will be satisfied by different things.
The burden of proof has to be on the author. The person wishing to delete it would have to prove a negative, which is borderline impossible (in this case, anyway). How great the burden is is another question and, as you say, that depends on who is taking part in the discussion, but there is no choice about who the burden is on.
If that is true, the burden would be on those wishing to retain, rather than the "author" (which is a concept best left out of wikipedia).
But, as long as a consensus, with good reason, wish to retain, any burden is discharged.
While it makes sense that a contributor should have a prima facie burden of showing that his ideas were not pulled out of thin air, this is of necessity a limited burden. If someone wants to dispute that the contributor's source is not reliable, a blanket statement about that without evidence is an assumption of the contributor's bad faith.
Ec
On 28/04/2009, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
But, as long as a consensus, with good reason, wish to retain, any burden is discharged.
No.
I'm pretty sure that the principle is that any material that isn't referenced to a reliable source can be removed at any time, irrespective of consensus.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/04/2009, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
But, as long as a consensus, with good reason, wish to retain, any burden is discharged.
No.
I'm pretty sure that the principle is that any material that isn't referenced to a reliable source can be removed at any time, irrespective of consensus.
-- -Ian Woollard
One of the favorite credos of Immediatists & WP:DICKs.
But I was a little surprised to see a lone outpost of sanity in WP:V:
"Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them."
On 28/04/2009, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/04/2009, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
But, as long as a consensus, with good reason, wish to retain, any burden is discharged.
No.
I'm pretty sure that the principle is that any material that isn't referenced to a reliable source can be removed at any time, irrespective of consensus.
-- -Ian Woollard
But I was a little surprised to see a lone outpost of sanity in WP:V:
"Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them."
Yes, and after I've spent 1.5 seconds with google failing to find it, then the material is gone.
This thing about:
But, as long as a consensus, with good reason, wish to retain, any burden is discharged.
Is simply a lot of crap; the material has to have a reference or two or it can go at any time. And that's the bottom line.
This may sound harsh, but it's the only thing that stops people adding OR.
And you might argue that certain things are 'common sense' but I've spent significant fractions of my time on wikipedia talk pages laboriously listing multiple sources *in addition* to the reliable sources in the article to prevent people from replacing referenced facts with "common sense"... that was actually completely incorrect and unreferenced. I've had people explain to me that they have first-hand experience of things... and still get it completely and utterly wrong.
Bottom line: this is not negotiable.
-- gwern