[WikiEN-l] [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] are destroying Wikipedia

[geni]

On 9/17/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> Pardon my subject - it is only slightly exaggerated.
>
> Obviously [[WP:V]] and (to a lesser extent) [[WP:RS]] are absolutely
> vital policies that cannot be discarded. On the other hand, in their
> current form they are abominations that fundamentally undermine key
> aspects of Wikipedia's mission.
>
> The problems with the pages are threefold.
>
> 1) They actively encourage removal of material that is accurate.
> 2) Their definitions of acceptable material were written with an eye
> towards only a handful of Wikipedia's articles, and render large
> portions of the site functionally un-editable.
> 3) They increase the burden of responsibility far beyond that which
> can reasonably be asked of the casual editor who does most of the
> heavy lifting for Wikipedia.
>
> In order.
>
> 1) They actively encourage removal of material that is accurate
>
> Admittedly, our standard for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth."
> We ought not, however, fall into the trap of deciding that we are
> therefore against truth. Our goal is to offer the sum total of human
> knowledge. If information is true and significant, we ought be trying
> to find a way to get it in.
>
> Both policies direly need a basic common sense check - don't
> challenge material you don't actually doubt the accuracy of. Editors
> should read skeptically and critically, but they should not go
> removing things for the sake of removing them.

You realise process says exactly that?
>
> Every other policy we have on Wikipedia explicitly gives editors a
> wide berth to interpret it on a case-by-case basis. This is, for
> instance, the whole reason [[WP:NPOV]] works. But increasingly,
> [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] are written to be applied by machine. We need
> to return to trusting that editors will be able to work out what a
> reliable source is on a topic by topic basis, given a set of general
> guidelines on the matter. I have in the past recommended basing these
> guidelines on _The Craft of Research_, a book published by UChicago
> Press. This has long been one of the standard academic research
> manuals. It's flexible, sensible, and respected - exactly what we
> want and need.

You want book length policy pages? No thankyou.


-- 
geni