On 10/19/06, Luis Alberto Riveros riveros11@gmail.com wrote:
In this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University It seems that VERIFIABILITY : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Walnut.png This policyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policiesin a nutshell: *Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Articles should cite these sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITEwhenever possible. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Is in a way in contradiction with the policy below in the same page:
- *Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of
dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information so long as:*
- *It is relevant to the organization's notability;*
- *It is not contentious;*
- *It is not unduly self-serving;*
- *It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not
directly related to the subject;*
- *There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.*
Please clarify this. Do you want reliable sources or not? If an antagonistic group starts an article and uses a self-published source to hurt an organization's image, is this considered "non contentious"? or "relevant to the organization notability?" or "unduly self-serving"?Thank you for your attention to this.
You bring up a valid point.
I cringe every time I see one of our "respected admins" reverting someone with an edit summary along the lines of "no blogs allowed" for instance...
Parker