Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
In practice, yes, if:
- The information looks likely to be correct; and
Problem is that's subjective. How does one determine
what
is or is not likely?
Subjectivity is not inherently a problem, and for a
2 more problems. Thats subjective and and its not policy.
project like this it's bound to happen at some point. In this case one
At some point, we all die, so why wait? Im not following your logic.
determines whether it's likely based on whether anyone actually challenges it. If nobody challenges a bit of information then either everyone thinks it's likely to be correct (that's good) or nobody has noticed it (not so good, but also makes the issue not terribly urgent). Or perhaps
Unless lots of people have noticed via external searching but no one has changed it and simply accepted it because its in an encyclopedia and they AGF. Have you heard of this new fangled concept called a false dilemma? I just heard about it. Something to do with logic.
nobody who's read it feels qualified to judge it, but a citation probably wouldn't help in that sort of situation.
Or somebody not only felt qualified, but did judge, changed it annonymously, assumed good faith, never bothered to check back on it to challenge reversions, only to have it changed back by the originator, a troll, vandal, an innocent admin, etc. This false dilemma concept sure puts things in perspective.
- Even if it isn't, it doesn't matter all that much
(not
potentially libelous, etc.); and
So, now we have the same subjectivity as 1) along with
a
test: If it causes legal problems, delete.
If nobody has a problem with it then there's no problem with leaving it in. Subjective but still quite useful.
If? And useful according to who? Anyone whos content with fake information? Spam? Pure nonsense? Having a page in a something that calls itself an encyclopedia say so? How is it useful?
- It looks likely that a source can be procured in
the
future.
Back to subjectivity. How does one determine whether a source is likely?
One just thinks it when one reads the information. eg., "The article says Mr. Foo died in 1975. I don't have access to a library to check right now but he was pretty famous so there's probably obituaries in the newspapers if nothing else." That's all that's needed, one doesn't have to actually look it up.
Actually, one does "have to" look it up. Which brings us back to the point of this dicussion. #1 policy NPOV states: "All [not some, not just those you decide are likely] Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must [as in "have to", this is not optional] be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source."
Also note the following in the NPOV policy: "absolute and non-negotiable."
You may consider Foo famous, but 99.7% of the world may not know who he is or where to find any information on him. That makes it OR until one provides reliable sources that show otherwise.
From the NPOV tutorial:
You must also ensure that your assertions about alternative uses are both significant and verifiable, using appropriate attribution and citation.
Now, applying this new technology of logic instead of that common sense thing, if something must have something, yet doesnt, should it be allowed to remain? If so, how long? If indefinite (infinite), then thats the same as saying that articles do not require NPOV. Any article can remain as long as one likes regardless of what NPOV states.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097