This one of five pillars, how is it enforced, exactly?
Many a vocal "defender of faith" feels safe to put forward one's own perception, oft mythologised, as a basis for contention of "unconvenient" sources, no matter how fundamental.
I had this impression that sources are to be countered only by other sources, not by somebody's own claims?
And if not countered, sources fall under the NPOV policy — all major academic POV are to be represented, with balanced language?
---
On the English Wikipedia the simple answer would be to delete the unsourced section and then move the "crazy" text to the talk page. If text was really crazy delete it and forget. If text might be true tag with a mention that it needs sources (inline or <!--hidden-->
Be brave, be bold, make Wikipedia Good :-)
mike
On 10/08/07, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com wrote:
This one of five pillars, how is it enforced, exactly?
Many a vocal "defender of faith" feels safe to put forward one's own perception, oft mythologised, as a basis for contention of "unconvenient" sources, no matter how fundamental.
I had this impression that sources are to be countered only by other sources, not by somebody's own claims?
And if not countered, sources fall under the NPOV policy — all major academic POV are to be represented, with balanced language?
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
In contrast, how should we handle indiscriminate deletions of unsourced (but possibly verifiable) material?
2007/8/10, michael west michawest@gmail.com:
On the English Wikipedia the simple answer would be to delete the unsourced section and then move the "crazy" text to the talk page. If text was really crazy delete it and forget. If text might be true tag with a mention that it needs sources (inline or <!--hidden-->
Be brave, be bold, make Wikipedia Good :-)
mike
On 10/08/07, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com wrote:
This one of five pillars, how is it enforced, exactly?
Many a vocal "defender of faith" feels safe to put forward one's own perception, oft mythologised, as a basis for contention of "unconvenient" sources, no matter how fundamental.
I had this impression that sources are to be countered only by other sources, not by somebody's own claims?
And if not countered, sources fall under the NPOV policy ― all major academic POV are to be represented, with balanced language?
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi Indiscrimate deletion even of unsourced material is a special kind of vandalism. It negates the fact that having a source does not imply the truth of what is said. There are people that only consider sources in the language of the Wikipedia to be valid; forgetting that this leads to a systemic bias. When content is deleted indiscriminately, without thinking, the readability and the consistency of a Wikipedia deteriorates.
The notion that only sourced facts can be trusted is taken as an article of faith, its truth is apparent when you believe it to be true.
Thanks, GerardM
On 8/10/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
In contrast, how should we handle indiscriminate deletions of unsourced (but possibly verifiable) material?
2007/8/10, michael west michawest@gmail.com:
On the English Wikipedia the simple answer would be to delete the unsourced section and then move the "crazy" text to the talk page. If text was really crazy delete it and forget. If text might be true tag with a mention
that
it needs sources (inline or <!--hidden-->
Be brave, be bold, make Wikipedia Good :-)
mike
On 10/08/07, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com wrote:
This one of five pillars, how is it enforced, exactly?
Many a vocal "defender of faith" feels safe to put forward one's own perception, oft mythologised, as a basis for contention of "unconvenient" sources, no matter how fundamental.
I had this impression that sources are to be countered only by other sources, not by somebody's own claims?
And if not countered, sources fall under the NPOV policy — all major academic POV are to be represented, with balanced language?
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
In contrast, how should we handle indiscriminate deletions of unsourced (but possibly verifiable) material?
Of course, any deletion of unsourced material is likely to bring forth cries that it is "indiscriminate" by partisans who are too lazy or dishonest to go find a source.
For this reason, in practice, it is generally to be applauded. :)
--Jimbo
I respect the wikipedia. I regard both the model of restricting contributions to experts and inviting broad contributions as equally valid and potentially equally flawed. I've actually disagreed with very few deletions I've seen, but they happen. Since I can't just revert pages and am not sure I'd want to, I remember learning technique from figuring out how one "unsourced" statement had been footnoted and restoring successfully (after only two tries) its link to the footnote (which I could access through history in another tab). Please don't make such a blanket statement about unsourced or any other materials. I've certainly been guilty of things as stupid as that. I do respect both sides of this debate, and I think that if you really start demanding a high threshold for contributions, you will cut into the possibility of reaching a constructive consensus in many articles.
On 8/15/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
In contrast, how should we handle indiscriminate deletions of unsourced (but possibly verifiable) material?
Of course, any deletion of unsourced material is likely to bring forth cries that it is "indiscriminate" by partisans who are too lazy or dishonest to go find a source.
For this reason, in practice, it is generally to be applauded. :)
--Jimbo
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Jimmy Wales wrote:
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
In contrast, how should we handle indiscriminate deletions of unsourced (but possibly verifiable) material?
Of course, any deletion of unsourced material is likely to bring forth cries that it is "indiscriminate" by partisans who are too lazy or dishonest to go find a source.
For this reason, in practice, it is generally to be applauded. :)
I find this to be a disappointingly provocative attitude.
While repeatedly hearing from journalists and others who interview you that Wikipedia is not reliable is bound to eventually have you believing them, I cannot believe that the situation is anywhere near so bad. There is no need to leave the impression that each such criticism touches a raw nerve. perhaps the questioner has just not been thorough in doing his homework.
Sure "lazy or dishonest" partisans will make the kinds of complaints that you mention, but the reverse is not true. One cannot conclude that the people who make such complaints are necessarily partisan, lazy or dishonest. There are many who demand sources, and are just as lazy as those they accuse of laziness.
Ultimately, the person who offers information as fact is responsible for sourcing his information, but this does not imply any immediate need in the absence of a meaningful challenge to that fact.
None among us who has lasted a significant amount of time around the Wikimedia projects supports totally unsourced facts, but I also think that we all realize that sourcing involves considerably more than putting up an indiscriminate series of tags. It is a multifaceted process where we cannot and must not rest comfortably just because new information is accompanied by a tag that perfectly follows the guidelines for good tag formatting. Certainly, there remain many articles that are completely unsourced, and I commend those Wikipedians who quietly make the effort to find sources for those articles without raising a storm of criticism about the failures of the original editors, who may themselves have contributed a couple of years ago. Where an article is deficient collaboration is best accomplished by making the article better, not by whining about the failures of others.
Applauding aggressive and confrontational ultimata for dealing with sourcing problems does not make for a better community or a better encyclopedia. Promoting a balanced and neutral approach would accomplish a lot more, and would be more in keeping with the principles that got this project where it is now.
Ec
2007/8/21, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Applauding aggressive and confrontational ultimata for dealing with sourcing problems does not make for a better community or a better encyclopedia. Promoting a balanced and neutral approach would accomplish a lot more, and would be more in keeping with the principles that got this project where it is now.
Hear! Hear! I can remember once having had my edit reverted as 'unsourced', with the effect that my corrections were made wrong again. After being angry, I added the references, with the effect that the article had 10 citations to the same books in the places where I edited, and none at all where I didn't. Apparently that made for a good sourced article. Now they have been made to the end of the paragraphs, and nobody minded that either. Apparently having an unsourced article is okay, having sources without saying what they do source is okay, but editing an article without giving sources is not okay?
While repeatedly hearing from journalists and others who interview you that Wikipedia is not reliable is bound to eventually have you believing them, I cannot believe that the situation is anywhere near so bad.
The situation is not *so* bad. Wikipedia *is* an extraordinary source of information.
BUT: you cannot go to wikipedia expecting that subject X is fairly treated. The level of the article is not uniform, meaning that wikipedia is indeed non-reliable.
Put in perspective, this is normal, because it's the first attempt to create World Encyclopedia, open to all cultures (more precisely, those with broadband access to Internet).
The problem is how to ponder various influences, which are often opposing. Requiring reliable sources is an excellent rule of the thumb. But even this one is difficult to apply, because the editors themselves have to decide together what sources are reliable enough (for an example of such negotiations, go to [[en:Transnistria]] and browse the talk pages).
Therefore, the real issue, like in most complex cases on the Administrator Noticeboards, is the ambiguity and inefficient enforcement of rules: - Ambiguity, because there is the "golden rule" WP:IGNORE. I have already been confronted with this, and it's not cool. - Inefficient enforcement, means that admins tend to apply rules only on subjects that interest them, and only to enforce their oppinion.
Oh, and recently, I have seen a trend aiming at removing politically-incorrect information that may lower the interest in Wikipedia. You probably know that people come here looking for information they can't find in regular sources (i.e. regular encyclopedias).
____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
On 23/08/07, Jacky PB dpotop1@yahoo.com wrote:
Put in perspective, this is normal, because it's the first attempt to create World Encyclopedia, open to all cultures (more precisely, those with broadband access to Internet).
It's always been intended for offline use as well, and there's been some progress toward this:
http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/charity-news/wikipedia-for-schools.ht...
Note that that's an edition produced by a charity for use in its own schools, i.e. as a practical encyclopedic object, not just a work in progress or something of which the next version will be good.
- d.
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's always been intended for offline use as well, and there's been some progress toward this:
There is a lot of quantitative progress. But with the current rules you cannot create an *encyclopedia*.
To be encyclopedic, wikipedia has to invent the culture-independent encyclopedic style, which goes beyond existing nation-centric scholarship (actually, it's easier for technical fields).
I see "WP:NPOV" and "WP:RS" as good ideological foundations for this work. But for now, it's like Communism and Soviet Russia: The ideology sounds good, but it is not yet here, and we don't know if it is actually feasible.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
On 25/08/07, Jacky PB dpotop1@yahoo.com wrote:
To be encyclopedic, wikipedia has to invent the culture-independent encyclopedic style, which goes beyond existing nation-centric scholarship (actually, it's easier for technical fields). I see "WP:NPOV" and "WP:RS" as good ideological foundations for this work. But for now, it's like Communism and Soviet Russia: The ideology sounds good, but it is not yet here, and we don't know if it is actually feasible.
I think NPOV is our greatest innovation, much more radical than letting anyone edit the website. There are fields we're successfully covering which haven't been covered well in this sort of detail before we got to it, e.g. Scientology-related topics on en:wp - you had critics' pages which were full of detail but almost unreadably bitter, and Church of Scientology pages which were very positive but were considered to miss a lot of important considerations. Now there's a serious attempt at neutral overview writing on the subject that really didn't exist before Wikipedia got to it.
- d.
On 10/08/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
On the English Wikipedia the simple answer would be to delete the unsourced section and then move the "crazy" text to the talk page. If text was really crazy delete it and forget. If text might be true tag with a mention that it needs sources (inline or <!--hidden-->
I was rather asking about whether the oft-encountered attitude of "this author represents a side-taking-group which is "wrong" to quote in context of this article and so should not be included" is justifiable by the Five Pillars of Gods?
Or is it a disguised WP:OR involved to block the "unpleasant" kind of info, like I deem it to be?
---
2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com:
On 10/08/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
On the English Wikipedia the simple answer would be to delete the unsourced section and then move the "crazy" text to the talk page. If text was really crazy delete it and forget. If text might be true tag with a mention that it needs sources (inline or <!--hidden-->
I was rather asking about whether the oft-encountered attitude of "this author represents a side-taking-group which is "wrong" to quote in context of this article and so should not be included" is justifiable by the Five Pillars of Gods?
Or is it a disguised WP:OR involved to block the "unpleasant" kind of info, like I deem it to be?
I think it is justifiable, yes. The alternative would be to give every fringe theory 'equal representation' on Wikipedia. The only questionable thing in my opinion is to use 'no original research' as the argument. To me it's more an issue of 'balancing within the article' - various sub-subjects should not get unproportional attention in an article, and for these theories ANY attention might be unproportionally much.
Indiscriminate deletion of unsourced material to "enforce [[WP:V]]" is a popular way to game the system.
I agree about systemic bias caused by requiring that sources be in English (or whatever language the Wikipedia is in).
2007/8/10, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com:
2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com:
On 10/08/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
On the English Wikipedia the simple answer would be to delete the
unsourced
section and then move the "crazy" text to the talk page. If text was
really
crazy delete it and forget. If text might be true tag with a mention
that it
needs sources (inline or <!--hidden-->
I was rather asking about whether the oft-encountered attitude of "this author represents a side-taking-group which is "wrong" to quote in context of this article and so should not be included" is justifiable by the Five Pillars of Gods?
Or is it a disguised WP:OR involved to block the "unpleasant" kind of info, like I deem it to be?
I think it is justifiable, yes. The alternative would be to give every fringe theory 'equal representation' on Wikipedia. The only questionable thing in my opinion is to use 'no original research' as the argument. To me it's more an issue of 'balancing within the article' - various sub-subjects should not get unproportional attention in an article, and for these theories ANY attention might be unproportionally much.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
I agree about systemic bias caused by requiring that sources be in English (or whatever language the Wikipedia is in).
I'm pretty sure there isn't any such requirement. Now if it's a subject on which tons of information *is* available in English, gratuitously referencing non-English material is frowned on, but on more obscure subjects non-English references are perfectly fine. I've written dozens of articles myself that reference non-English books and encyclopedias, and nobody's ever complained about that, so I'd be surprised if it were against some sort of policy.
-Mark
The wording of the policy is ambigous, and many believe that foreign-language sources are not allowed.
2007/8/12, Delirium delirium@hackish.org:
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
I agree about systemic bias caused by requiring that sources be in
English
(or whatever language the Wikipedia is in).
I'm pretty sure there isn't any such requirement. Now if it's a subject on which tons of information *is* available in English, gratuitously referencing non-English material is frowned on, but on more obscure subjects non-English references are perfectly fine. I've written dozens of articles myself that reference non-English books and encyclopedias, and nobody's ever complained about that, so I'd be surprised if it were against some sort of policy.
-Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 12/08/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
The wording of the policy is ambigous, and many believe that foreign-language sources are not allowed.
Then they are wrong. And it should be reworded. {{sofixit}}
- d.
Yes, it should be reworded.
{{sofixit}} doesn't really apply to policy pages. You need a discussion leading to consensus, or any changes you make will be quickly reverted. I have even read accusations of a few admins trying to own policy pages.
2007/8/12, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 12/08/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
The wording of the policy is ambigous, and many believe that foreign-language sources are not allowed.
Then they are wrong. And it should be reworded. {{sofixit}}
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
This is the third time in the recent discussion someone spoke of "people owning pages" -- I hope that's sarcasm, but if not: when and where was the concept of "people owning a page" introduced into WP policy? -- Till
J.L.W.S. The Special One schrieb am 12.08.2007 15:50:
Yes, it should be reworded.
{{sofixit}} doesn't really apply to policy pages. You need a discussion leading to consensus, or any changes you make will be quickly reverted. I have even read accusations of a few admins trying to own policy pages.
2007/8/12, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 12/08/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
The wording of the policy is ambigous, and many believe that foreign-language sources are not allowed.
Then they are wrong. And it should be reworded. {{sofixit}}
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Delirium wrote:
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
I agree about systemic bias caused by requiring that sources be in English (or whatever language the Wikipedia is in).
I'm pretty sure there isn't any such requirement. Now if it's a subject on which tons of information *is* available in English, gratuitously referencing non-English material is frowned on, but on more obscure subjects non-English references are perfectly fine. I've written dozens of articles myself that reference non-English books and encyclopedias, and nobody's ever complained about that, so I'd be surprised if it were against some sort of policy.
At least there is no such policy that the normal ones of us would subscribe to. But you never know when someone will write such a policy, and bury it in some obscure page that nobody watches only to pull it out several months later saying that since nobody objected to it it must be valid policy. Maybe I'm just cynical. ;-)
Ec
2007/8/12, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
At least there is no such policy that the normal ones of us would subscribe to. But you never know when someone will write such a policy, and bury it in some obscure page that nobody watches only to pull it out several months later saying that since nobody objected to it it must be valid policy. Maybe I'm just cynical. ;-)
Alternatively, whenever a policy can mean two things, it always means what the person quoting it wants it to mean. And you need to move heaven and earth to change either it or its interpretation.
On 10/08/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com:
I was rather asking about whether the oft-encountered attitude of "this author represents a side-taking-group which is "wrong" to quote in context of this article and so should not be included" is justifiable by the Five Pillars of Gods?
...
I think it is justifiable, yes. The alternative would be to give every fringe theory 'equal representation' on Wikipedia. The only
...
I wasn't talking about fringe (freakish) theories here, and anyway I see no definition of fringe theory on en:wp.
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 many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.
---
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.
- In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given
topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.
A bit further down, it says:
If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
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?
---
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
michael west wrote:
On 10/08/07, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com wrote:
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....
That's a harsh criterion. Who decides whether someone is unfamiliar with the subjec.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
michael west wrote:
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....
That's a harsh criterion. Who decides whether someone is unfamiliar with the subjec.
Ec
The article's owner, of course.
-- Sean Barrett | Fine day to throw a party. sean@epoptic.com | Throw him as far as you can.
On 10/08/07, Sean sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
michael west wrote:
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....
That's a harsh criterion. Who decides whether someone is unfamiliar with the subjec.
Ec
The article's owner, of course.
-- Sean Barrett | Fine day to throw a party. sean@epoptic.com | Throw him as far as you can.
and now I am agreeing with ownership issues? my point was about familiarity with an article subject. I would never edit an article about physics because I would not know where to begin. Likewise with manga pokemon shotacom anime. My attempt at editing a page on any subject I was unfamiliar with, as Yury said before would be tantamount to vandalism.
mike
michael west wrote:
and now I am agreeing with ownership issues? my point was about familiarity with an article subject. I would never edit an article about physics because I would not know where to begin. Likewise with manga pokemon shotacom anime. My attempt at editing a page on any subject I was unfamiliar with, as Yury said before would be tantamount to vandalism.
mike
And I had no idea who [[Cliodhna]] was until I read the article, but I edited it anyway. One of the primordial principles of Wikipedia is "be bold." If we had stayed in our own sandboxes, Wikipedia would not exist today.
-- Sean Barrett | I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs, or sean@epoptic.com | insanity for everyone, but they've always | worked for me. --Hunter S. Thompson
michael west wrote:
On 10/08/07, Sean sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
michael west wrote:
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....
That's a harsh criterion. Who decides whether someone is unfamiliar with the subject.
The article's owner, of course.
and now I am agreeing with ownership issues? my point was about familiarity with an article subject. I would never edit an article about physics because I would not know where to begin. Likewise with manga pokemon shotacom anime. My attempt at editing a page on any subject I was unfamiliar with, as Yury said before would be tantamount to vandalism.
The "normal" editor is more likely to act in a self-limiting way on these without a need for more rules. We can still go into unfamiliar territory to fix spelling or grammar. If people who don't know what they are talking about begin to dominate articles, then our problems are worse than I might have imagined.
Ec
2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com:
I perceive a contradiction here in an additional notion of some ill-defined "truthfullness" threshold, which may be freely abused -- and is abused.
I don't see how this would be the case. If something is verifiable, it seems to me it cannot be judged untrue.
And once again, I'm not talking of POVs of some sects or cults.
Well, you may not be talking about it, but you cannot make a general statement and then decide to only apply it where you want it.
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?
It depends on the knowledgeability to the editors involved. If they are in such a position that they would have known of the theory if it were actually an important theory in the field being discussed, then it might be an issue. Even if not, they can still argue from 'negative sources' ("It's not mentioned in this source and that source, both of which would be expected to mention any important theory in the field").
Academic views don't deserve their inclusion in Wikipedia by being published by an authority in the field, but by being considered important enough by his or her colleagues. A Wikipedia editor who has some knowledge in the field may use his own knowledge to judge that - although there is a good chance of misjudgement, so such a decision is not really 'final'.
On 10/08/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com:
I perceive a contradiction here in an additional notion of some ill-defined "truthfullness" threshold, which may be freely abused -- and is abused.
I don't see how this would be the case. If something is verifiable, it seems to me it cannot be judged untrue.
...and if it's respectable (e.g., academic) enough, it ought to be included, balanced language and all. Which is precisely my point from the beginning. How is such policy enforcable?
Say, some perceive this 'something' as a capital breach in their faith? Where to turn, then? Or just let those people "have it their way"?
---
2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com:
...and if it's respectable (e.g., academic) enough, it ought to be included, balanced language and all. Which is precisely my point from the beginning. How is such policy enforcable?
Not just respectability. Importance is a point too. There's dozens, if not hundreds of different forms of cosmic inflation thought out, most by eminent cosmologists. These are highly academic and respectable, but many are also published and little more. No reason to put all of those in Wikipedia.
Say, some perceive this 'something' as a capital breach in their faith? Where to turn, then? Or just let those people "have it their way"?
NPOV - Wikipedia is not there to only state things from one belief system, however much someone believes in it.
On 10/08/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com:
...and if it's respectable (e.g., academic) enough, it ought to be included, balanced language and all. Which is precisely my point from the beginning. How is such policy enforcable?
Not just respectability. Importance is a point too. There's dozens, if
....
Say, some perceive this 'something' as a capital breach in their faith? Where to turn, then? Or just let those people "have it their way"?
NPOV - Wikipedia is not there to only state things from one belief system, however much someone believes in it.
Yes, yes, all true, but --- how is it enforcable?
---
2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com:
NPOV - Wikipedia is not there to only state things from one belief system, however much someone believes in it.
Yes, yes, all true, but --- how is it enforcable?
That's something I also would like to know... I'm having a case at this moment, and the 'solution' is that the page has been locked 'until people agree'. Given that they will never agree, it means that the page is locked in all eternity. Doesn't sound like a solution to me, but it seems to be the Wikipedia way :-(
On 10/08/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com:
NPOV - Wikipedia is not there to only state things from one belief system, however much someone believes in it.
Yes, yes, all true, but --- how is it enforcable?
That's something I also would like to know... I'm having a case at this moment, and the 'solution' is that the page has been locked 'until people agree'. Given that they will never agree, it means that the page is locked in all eternity. Doesn't sound like a solution to me, but it seems to be the Wikipedia way :-(
Ah.
---
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.
- In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given
topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.
A bit further down, it says:
If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________
Yury, you have opened a can of worms.
The critera for source is not so biased in favour of who has the largest voice. Sources must come from established notable publications. in terms of the english wikipedia, no not everything has to be in the English language, but main sources must be to be credible.
Who decides what is a fringe theory? 9/11 theorists, JFK theorists and for this list Armenian genocide theorists? I don't know what is a deciding factor apart from we should report what the mainstream writes. Should Wikipedia be wrong in these circumstances - yes. Is Wikipedia being "hoodwinked" by only reporting what is mainstream knowledge? possibly. Where do alternative theories fit? well they fit somewhere in every article, but must be played down.
Deletion because "I don't agree" was never my idea and I think the concept is against everything Wikipedia is about. I much favor moving "controversial subjects" to talk and discuss them there before we wikiarmageddon.
mikey
I agree with Yuri on this. The policy about negligible fringe view is used sometimes not to eliminate real nonsense, but to eliminate minority views of which one disapproves--especially pernicious when it's a group of editors owning an article and eliminating the views they personally would prefer to not exist.
It's very easy to say that a small group is negligible, or that one academic isn't important, no matter how much attention he may have gotten, or that one strange medical view has not gotten more than insignificant attention, by one's own idea of what to call insignificant.
I don't think people reliably make the distinction right on this when its things they care about very much; instead of relying on exceptional objectivity, it would be better to take people as they are and have the rule than any published view must be included.
On 8/10/07, 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:
I was rather asking about whether the oft-encountered attitude of "this author represents a side-taking-group which is "wrong" to quote in context of this article and so should not be included" is justifiable by the Five Pillars of Gods?
...
I think it is justifiable, yes. The alternative would be to give every fringe theory 'equal representation' on Wikipedia. The only
...
I wasn't talking about fringe (freakish) theories here, and anyway I see no definition of fringe theory on en:wp.
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 many cases, there are multiple established views of any given
topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Yury Tarasievich wrote:
This one of five pillars, how is it enforced, exactly?
It's important, but it's not one of the five pillars. In fact the rule mongers try to expand it to well beyond it's original intent. If it can be verifiably sourced it's not original research.
Many a vocal "defender of faith" feels safe to put forward one's own perception, oft mythologised, as a basis for contention of "unconvenient" sources, no matter how fundamental.
I had this impression that sources are to be countered only by other sources, not by somebody's own claims?
Yes, but some would be amazed by that idea.. ;-)
And if not countered, sources fall under the NPOV policy — all major academic POV are to be represented, with balanced language?
Sure, all major POVs (not necessarily academic, and some minor ones included too) are to be includible. Balanced language does not mean that all POVs get a balanced amount of space. Having only one POV is common in the early stages of an article. The absence of a differing POV (assuming one exists) is not an excuse for removing what's there; it's an encouragement to add the missing material. If a differing POV exists, and you know that it exists, it would not be very fair-minded to insist that material be deleted.
Ec
2007/8/10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Absolutely. If there is a content dispute going on and one side is proving sources and the other isn't, then it's not a difficult decision to make.
I don't necessarily agree. It depends on what the content dispute is about. If there is a 'Church of John Doe' believing that John Doe is the returned Jesus Christ, they might have sources telling that John Doe is the returned Jesus Christ, whereas there are no sources he is not. Does that mean that we have to tell on the Jesus Christ page that he has returned as John Doe? Or if someone claims that between 200 AD and 500 AD the Orkneys were inhabited by a race of highly intelligent orcs, should we include that in Wikipedia as long as noone has taken the effort to explicitly state that it's not true?
I'm only willing to go with your statement if you also allow for 'negative sources' to be counted as sources - that is, sourcing of the type "if this were true and considered important, then one would expect this-and-that source to discuss it, but they don't".
I don't necessarily agree. It depends on what the content dispute is about. If there is a 'Church of John Doe' believing that John Doe is the returned Jesus Christ, they might have sources telling that John Doe is the returned Jesus Christ, whereas there are no sources he is not. Does that mean that we have to tell on the Jesus Christ page that he has returned as John Doe? Or if someone claims that between 200 AD and 500 AD the Orkneys were inhabited by a race of highly intelligent orcs, should we include that in Wikipedia as long as noone has taken the effort to explicitly state that it's not true?
I'm only willing to go with your statement if you also allow for 'negative sources' to be counted as sources - that is, sourcing of the type "if this were true and considered important, then one would expect this-and-that source to discuss it, but they don't".
Sorry, by "sources" I mean "reliable sources". An unreliable source is no different from no source.
Hoi, How do you divine a reliable from an unreliable source ? There are many subjects that are based on believing in certain truths and when these axioms are denied by others, does that make them unreliable ? Or do you subscribe to the view that only "objective" truths should be used for Wikipedia ?
Thanks, GerardM
On 8/10/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't necessarily agree. It depends on what the content dispute is about. If there is a 'Church of John Doe' believing that John Doe is the returned Jesus Christ, they might have sources telling that John Doe is the returned Jesus Christ, whereas there are no sources he is not. Does that mean that we have to tell on the Jesus Christ page that he has returned as John Doe? Or if someone claims that between 200 AD and 500 AD the Orkneys were inhabited by a race of highly intelligent orcs, should we include that in Wikipedia as long as noone has taken the effort to explicitly state that it's not true?
I'm only willing to go with your statement if you also allow for 'negative sources' to be counted as sources - that is, sourcing of the type "if this were true and considered important, then one would expect this-and-that source to discuss it, but they don't".
Sorry, by "sources" I mean "reliable sources". An unreliable source is no different from no source.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
GerardM wrote:
How do you divine a reliable from an unreliable source ? There are many subjects that are based on believing in certain truths and when these axioms are denied by others, does that make them unreliable ? Or do you subscribe to the view that only "objective" truths should be used for Wikipedia ?
A reliable source is one that supports one's own point of view. An unreliable source is one that supports the other person's point of view. :-(
Ultimately it's up to the reader to decide whether a source is reliable. While "source" is relatively objective, and answers the question, "Where did this come from?" we can't say this about "reliable". It is in the same category of weasel words as "notable".
Ec
--- Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm only willing to go with your statement if you also allow for 'negative sources' to be counted as sources - that is, sourcing of the type "if this were true and considered important, then one would expect this-and-that source to discuss it, but they don't".
That is a very important point. Thank you for making it Andre. :)
-- mav
____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=...
On 17/08/07, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm only willing to go with your statement if you also allow for 'negative sources' to be counted as sources - that is, sourcing of the type "if this were true and considered important, then one would expect this-and-that source to discuss it, but they don't".
That is a very important point. Thank you for making it Andre. :)
It's an interesting issue. Right now, we don't use it in article space - at least, not routinely, though you do get some articles with little discursive essays on their sources* where this sort of thing comes out - but it gets used plenty in the editorial side of things, deciding whether or not to include discussion in a topic.
Which I think is probably appropriate; it gets a bit silly to say "A quotes a fringe theory, but reliable sources B, D, and F through Q don't give it the time of day", and we should avoid duelling citations in articlespace except when actually necessary...
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org