[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

[Ray Saintonge]

jayjg wrote:

>On 12/26/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>On 12/26/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>No, a source is only required for anything that is disputed. That's
>>>pretty fundamental, WP:V. Quite workable and highly desirable.
>>>      
>>>
>>And it goes above and beyond just WP.  Citations of claims,
>>inferences/conclusions/derived statements, and non-obvious factual
>>statements (that is, not common knowledge [taking the arbitrary nature
>>of "common knowledge" into consideration, of course]) are simply an
>>academic "must" if you aim to be taken seriously.  That's how I
>>interpret relevant Wikipedia policies, and how I apply them.
>>    
>>
>That's the point; if Wikipedia is going to become a source of
>knowledge that is taken seriously, instead of being continually
>derided, its standards are going to be have to be high, rather than
>"it's ridiculous that I should have to cite all of my claims".
>
I have no argument with high standards, or relaxing those standards when 
something is undisputed.  Maybe what we should strive for is the 
standard that would be required in a good academic paper.  We can easily 
agree that going too much below that standard will have a serious effect 
on credibility, but we also have to recognize that there can be 
consequences to going too far over.

Then too standards can vary according to the subject matter.  They 
absolutely need to be more severe in political areas where disputes are 
commonplace, or biograohies where there is a risk of libel.  We also 
need to acknowledge that the broad ideas that are true for the wider 
article that includes our subject is also true for our target article, 
unless it is concerned with a specified variation from that generality.

Your example quote suggests a certain defensiveness on the part of that 
editor.  Its general nature would leave me suspicious.  Success in 
dealing with him may not be is having '''all''' his claims referenced, 
but in getting him to understand that some important ones need to be 
substantiated.  Being willing to show some spirit of compromise with 
them will do a great deal more for turning them into good future editors 
than punitive processes when they don't follow our "rules" to the letter.

Ec