[Foundation-l] Verifiability: Constitution? Question for Jimbo!

[Ray Saintonge]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

>Hoi,
>When some people have highlighted that in their opinion veriability and  
>no original research are two sides to the same coin, it does not equate 
>that everyone agrees with that. Not everyone does. When people make the 
>effort to write an article for Wikipedia, it does not make them POV 
>warriors; constantly on the lookout what is happening to their article. 
>This invalidates your argument that they will "defend" their article in 
>the first place. There are many people who have been disgusted by the 
>policies about (in their opinion) nitwits who claim that an article is 
>not "good" but do not argue WHY it is not good. The notion that 
>something is not good because there are no sources provided is in and of 
>itself not a conceptual argument, it is a formalistic argument.
>
Defending an article is not inherently wrong.  How and to what extent 
one defends the article is far more important.  The same thing can be 
said about how and to what extent one opposes an article.  The problem 
arises when the author's personal investment in an article is more 
important than the article itself.

>On the topic of politics, the Hungarians know all too well that 
>politicians lie. 
>
Hungarian politicians do not have a monopoly on this skill.

>What proof is in the fact that something was said 
>publicly. 
>
It proves that whoever said it said it publicly

>It is public knowledge that the voting machines are not 
>reliable and politicians are still elected this way. 
>
Many would say that "public knowledge" is a weasel phrase, although in 
this instance I am sure that enough people have made that assertion that 
it should be easy to track down a quotation from somebody who should know.

>The same is true 
>with religion, every religion believes in their truth and consequently 
>what an other religion says is an affront. The points that prove any 
>point of view in this have sources, it is just what you want to 
>believe.
>
Religious belief is a problem by itself because it does not adapt very 
well to compromise solutions.

>in a similar vain, research has indicated that commercial 
>healthcare result in a higher death rate but as this is not a fact that 
>is acceptable this fact is ignored.
>
The death rate everywhere is neither more nor less than 100%. :-)

>When the talk page is long, the facts and probably the sources are biased.
>
When the talk page is too long people stop reading it.  It will 
naturally contain multiple biases.  At one time it was considered a 
positive contribution to condense the contents of a talk page, but I 
have heard very little about that recently.  Preparing a fair summary is 
a tough job.

>Constructive criticism.. I would love a definition for that.. is that 
>not the criticism that says "you are on the right track but see the way 
>of your errors" .. basically replacing one POV with another ..
>
Not really.  It presents alternative points of view.  It recognizes what 
is right in the article, and suggests alternatives that might improve 
the article.  Insisting that the original writer has erred is not 
constructive.

Ec