[WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

[Ray Saintonge]

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Steve Bennett wrote:
>  
>
>>On 3/2/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>A better wording would be:
>>>
>>>"New material added to an article that lacks a reputable source is
>>>likely to be removed without warning. It is courteous for the editor who
>>>removes this material to re-insert it on the talk page of the article,
>>>along with a note about why it was removed."
>>>      
>>>
>>Why do we keep coming back to this strange policy? It doesn't make
>>much sense (95% of Wikipedia is "likely to be removed without
>>warning"?), and it certainly doesn't reflect current practice.
>>    
>>
>With any luck it's keeping the original research out.
>
So now keeping original research out depends on luck?  Being willing to 
sacrifice the 95%  to ensure eradication of the 5% that's bad does not 
seem like a cost-effective strategy.

>>This situation is starting to remind me of police who tell the public
>>"if you do X or Y, you WILL be caught", when the actual apprehension
>>rate is vanishingly small.
>>    
>>
>Don't forget that we're working towards 1.0 and a million featured
>articles...
>
We've been talking about 1.0 for the last two years (or more?).  When 
people are seriously ready to do something about that, I hope that they 
will apply common sense to their selection criteria.

At one featured article per day that will be enough for about 2740 
years.  We have plenty of time to get ready for that.

>>Is it not silly to have the most fundamental policy we have be so far
>>removed from a) current practice, and b) what we actually want? We
>>want sources, but we also want material to be added - we don't
>>actually remove material except as a last resort. Maybe we need
>>something like:
>>
>>"When considering removing unsourced material, take into account the
>>likely factual accuracy of the material, the possible harm that could
>>be done by leaving it, and the chance that a subsequent editor could
>>find a source for it. Libellous material or copyright violations
>>aside, it is polite to move the material to the talk page with an
>>explanation for your removal."
>>    
>>
>Good, much better than my version. But we also need to encourage people
>to cite their sources (where possible) and remind them that anything
>which doesn't seem quite right *is likely to be removed*.
>
Steve's version is definitely an improvement. "It is polite" is still a 
little wimpy; "editors are strongly advised" might be better.  I would 
also make a small addition to have the one phrase read "the possible 
harm that could be done by leaving or removing it."  Another thing that 
could be taken into account is the nature of the material to reflect 
that the standards applied to commentary on video games will be much 
lower than those applied to biographies of real people.

What needs to be stressed is a balanced approach to editing.  For some 
editors enthusiasm far outstroips judgement., and techniques that would 
moderate their behaviour would be welcome.

Ec