[WikiEN-l] good example of overuse of {{fact}}

[Ray Saintonge]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Precisely.  It has all the flavor of an urban legend.  I found many many 
>>>messageboard posts which claimed it as fact, but no one seems to have a 
>>>source.  Perhaps it is true, after all, but the initial evidence seems 
>>>to suggest otherwise.
>>>      
>>>
>>This opens up the question of whether we need "a source" or "an original 
>>source".  If we don't accept original research, we shouldn't be 
>>demanding it.  Tracking these possible urban legends to their ultimate 
>>beginnings should not be required.  Naturally, some source would be 
>>necessary, the more reliable the better, and messageboards are 
>>questionable at best.  If another reputable source questions the claim 
>>that too should be mentioned in the interests of NPOV.
>>
>>"Flavor" is not evidence; it is nothing more than strong instinctual 
>>suspicion.
>>    
>>
>Hmm.  We might be talking past each other.
>
This may very well be.  Perhaps it's because in my philosophy of the
pursuit of knowledge the questions are more important than the answers.

>For claim X, when it seems that X may be an urban legend, we ought not 
>to assert X unless and until we find a proper source for it.  And 
>"proper" is an editorial judgment which will depend on the context, and 
>about which reasonable people ought to be able to find some compromise 
>or consensus.
>
We don't disagree here   I absolutely agree that "proper" (or "reliable"
or "reputable") depends on the context.  The same statement can also
operate on different level.  Let's start with X = "The word 'blackboard'
is not politically correct."  By itself this is not a fact, but an
opinion.  From this we can have:
    1. Many people claim X
    2. Some schools have banned the word "blackboard" because X
    3. X is an urban legend.
    4. Statement 2. is an urban legend.

The standards of evidence for these statements will differ.

>For claim X, when it seems that X may be an urban legend, we ought not 
>to assert that X is an urban legend, unless and until we find a proper 
>source for it.
>
I agree with this too.  I believe that the two elements necessary to an
urban legend are wide belief, and an assertion that is completely false,
and often in contradiction to contradiction to commen sense.

>Generally speaking, anytime a claim seems reasonably suspect, we ought 
>to try to remove it while we sort things out.
>
Apart from the possibility that "reasonably suspect" may be an oxymoron
:-)  ...

This may be where we differ.  I thought the Boston Globe comment was
favorable.  We become publicly more credible when we recognize and admit
our own imperfections, and when we can reach out to the general public
to ask them what they know about a claim.  To be sure, potentially
libellous claims still need to be held to a much highter standard, but
for the general run of uncertain claims, keeping the tag indefinitely
will show that we want help rather than having the question remain
hidden and unanswered.  This is even more important with obscure
subjects where nobody with the needed expertise is available to
regularly check facts.

>Yes, some trolls will use such a policy to try to remove things like 
>"Thomas Jefferson was the 3rd President" until we get a source.  But we 
>should set our standards assuming rational people as our colleagues, and 
>deal with the trolls as a separate behavioral issue.
>
And other trolls will want that statement deleted because not including
the words "of the United States" could make him the president of almost
anything. ;-)

Ec