On 10/08/07, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/08/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com:
What's troubling me now is that what you say seems to me likecontradicting the following pieces in the WP:OR:
- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not
truth.
In what way is this contradictory? It is only contradictory if you take this to mean "anything that is verifiable should be in Wikipedia"
- and even then it still does not say what article it should be in.
I perceive a contradiction here in an additional notion of some ill-defined "truthfullness" threshold, which may be freely abused -- and is abused.
And once again, I'm not talking of POVs of some sects or cults.
Okay, let's simplify the issue -- let's talk about whether academic
views, which weren't actually challenged on their factual or interpretational basis, may be blocked from inclusion on basis of their unfamiliarity to some of the editors?
No never, Editors who are unfamiliar with a topic should never have any input to say this is good this is bad, I will search google etc....
---
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l