[WikiEN-l] Philosophical question re sources

[Mark Gallagher]

G'day Michael,

>>Theoretically yes, except that I would say any rebuttal rather than just
>>a verifiable one.  It is NPOV because it represents the average of all
>>views that have been submitted until then.  In practical terms that
>>neutrality will cease as soon as one other person reads the article and
>>challenges its contents, unless a visiting Beta Centaurian decides to
>>get in on the act.  A challenge to the system can be as simple as a
>>polite request for sources to be cited.
> 
> So Wikipedia policies only apply once someone insists it does? I.e. I
> can keep an article about my random theory about Beta Centauri until
> someone comes to read the article and wonders "mmm, I wonder if this
> satisfies WP:V?"?

Well, sure.  That's called *real life*.  If an editor is either ignorant 
of Wikipedia practices or, alternatively, a kook, they aren't likely to 
restrain themselves --- so their work stays in until someone more 
knowledgeable/less crazy takes a look.

>>Once a request has been made for verification, the original contributor
>>has the primary burden of proof, but that does not prevent others from
>>supplying proof if they so desire.  If the original statement is as
>>patently ridiculous as the one you hypothesize, any attempt at rebuttal
>>implies that there was something there worth rebutting, and the very act
>>of initiating a rebuttal gives credibility to the original statement.
> 
> That's quite a statement. Holocaust denial, say, is often rebutted so
> does this give those claims "credibility"?

Frankly, yes ... as shocking as it sounds.  There's a spectrum of 
credibility, which I will be making up over the next few seconds.  It 
goes something like this:

* the unchallenged truth ("George W. Bush is President of the USA")
* unlikely but true ("scratching just makes it worse")
* true, but beset on all sides by kooks (Chip Berlet around?)
* plausible but untrue (e.g. those "stupid people sue for their own
   stupidity and win" hoax emails)
* lies that have attracted the attention of rebutters (Holocaust denial,
   for example)
* lies so obviously false that it's really not worth our while to rebut
   them (like Lyndon LaRouche's claims to significance)
* kookery (lizardmen, anyone?)

So, David Irving is more credible than Lyndon LaRouche, who in turn is 
more credible than David Icke.  All three are members of that subset of 
humanity known as "lying scumbags who really ought to spend all their 
time hung up by the ankles while well-paid troops take turns tickling 
their soles with feathers", but some of that subset tell more fantastic 
lies than others.


Cheers,

-- 
Mark Gallagher
0439 704 975
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 24/03/2006