The redraft is progressing slowly so that as many concerns with the wording as possible
can be dealt with. Where there is concern (objection seems too strong a word) over the
redraft, the same really applies to the policy as currently worded anyway (since, after
all, it is a redraft, not a fundamental change).
The redraft does, however, clarify existing practice, and I think it leaves no loopholes
- by being straightforward and not allowing for complicated exceptions, and by having
fewer words to argue about, loopholes are eliminated.
Of course, the wording is, no doubt, imperfect, and suggestions for taking this forward
would, I'm sure, be welcome by all,
Jon
jguk
slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote:
On 1/4/06, Jon wrote:
There is a proposed rewrite of the Verifiability
policy on
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp&…
.
So far it has had positive reviews, and there have been a number of amendments made as a
result of its exposure on the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability page and on IRC.
Please note too that it has also had objections, and because it's one
of only three editorial policies, and the one dealing with sourrces,
it's important that no loopholes be opened in a drive to be succinct.
Sarah
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail