[WikiEN-l] Policy across different languages

[Oskar Sigvardsson]

Thanks for translating!

On 8/29/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's a bit too long to translate entirely (and some of it seems to be
> people settling personal scores -- oppose because so-and-so supports
> and that sort of thing), but here's a sampling of the opposes:

Some of these objections make a kind of wierd sense (Edwardбох's for
instance), many of them seem to me to be just people not understanding
the policy.

> "Bureaucracy = evil" -- Иваныч

Per definition? Someone should say something to the bureocrats.....

> "Don't see the point.  These rules are too obvious (on the level of
> being fundamental principles of Wikipedia), and are thus simply
> extraneous" -- Edwardбох
>
> "Without a strict understanding of 'authoritative source', the rule is
> useless and perhaps even harmful" -- Jannikol
>
> "Our deletionist activists will start to remove the contents of the
> encyclopedia at a very rapid pace.  The {{citation needed}} template
> is quite sufficient" -- Юра

What is {{citation needed}}, other than an implementation of this policy?

> "Forbidding original research will be enough, in my opinion.  Extra
> disputes and bureaucracy won't lead to anything good" -- Terminus
>
> "And what am I supposed to do if my source is a paper book?" -- Ян Владимирович

Use the book as the source?

> "The assertion that verifiability is more important than truth seems
> disputable.  And furthermore, to create the ideal article, we need to
> study the actual thing, not stories about it in 'authoritative
> sources'" -- Fred

If something is true and encyclopedic, it should be verifiable. If
there are no sources to a claim, then chances are it's not fit to be
included in an encyclopedia.

> "According to this rule, I cannot, for example, write about something
> which I saw with my own eyes..." -- Azh7

No you can't..........you never could, that would be original research.

> (I haven't read the actual policy yet; I wonder how close it is in
> meaning to the English one.)

I think Jimbo needs to step in and talk to some bigwigs at
ru.wikipedia.org and sort this out. Maybe even wave his magic wand if
need be (after all, he more than anyone else has been arguing for this
for a long time). We cannot have an encyclopedia without a
verifiability policy, it's just not possible in the long run.

--Oskar