[WikiEN-l] Another sourcing problem

[David Goodman]

  1. the content is significant to the purpose of the article, or NPOV
would be compromised if absent;
  2. the content is not published in a more reliable easily available source;
  3. the author's details and the origins of the material
(authenticity) is   not in significant good-faith question;
  4. the author's position to speak to the matter or viewpoint
involved is  not in significant good-faith  question;
  5. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  6. it does not involve claims about third parties, except to the
extent the author is authoritatively able to provide them. ;
  7. it does not involve claims about events not having a reasonably
direct relationship to the  subject;
  8. the article is not based entirely or almost entirely on such
sources, and there is substantial third party verification of key
claims.
  9. The material is clearly attributed to the author and the type of
 medium made clear (personal website, blog, etc) for the reader's
understanding.

These modifications i wording are made to address sourcing problems
which have in fact occurred and require flexibility in their
resolution


On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:53 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you explain and suggest what you mean here?
>
> FT2
>
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:46 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> (Snip)
>
>
>
>> Perhaps a rewording not using absolute terms
>> might work better--NFCC has shown the disadvantages of using in an
>> absolute sense things that need to be interpreted
>>
>
>> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 1:31 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > IAR isn't for a regular, predictable, situation where a generic agreed
>> > solution would be better, and not for a sourcing issue or "systematic
>> > problem" like this. More and more often there is a chance (small in any
>> > given case, large overall) that important information for an article may
>> be
>> > blog published, so we do have a genuine issue here.
>> >
>> > I tend to use eventualism for filling out a page, not for correcting
>> > violations of NPOV (paramount policy).I don't expect to find myself
>> > thinking *"It's not balanced and gives undue weight but eventually we
>> might
>> > get a source that fixes it"*. That's different from extra information
>> that
>> > we don't need. As Charles says the problem is that RS is our filter to
>> > ensure what we do say is reliable. So the question is, that information
>> in
>> > the blog - who says it's accurate? Why would a user rely upon it?
>> >
>> > My suggested view is to look at the purpose of RS. The aim of RS is part
>> of
>> > a wider goal - not passing off dud information as good, and allowing
>> users
>> > to see transparently where our information comes from. We do that to an
>> > extent with self published material. So I would be okay with a solution
>> that
>> > extended and built upon SELFPUB. For example:
>> >
>> >
>> > Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of
>> > information, without the requirement that they be published by experts in
>> > the field or reliable sources, so long as:
>> >
>> >   1. the content is salient or NPOV would be compromised if absent;
>> >   2. the content is not published in a more reliable source;
>> >   3. the author's details and the origins of the material (authenticity)
>> is
>> >   not in question;
>> >   4. the author's position to speak to the matter or viewpoint involved
>> is
>> >   not in question;
>> >   5. the material is not unduly self-serving;
>> >   6. it does not involve claims about third parties;
>> >   7. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the
>> >   subject;
>> >   8. the article is not based primarily on such sources;
>> >   9. The material is clearly attributed to the author and the type of
>> >   medium made clear (personal website, blog, etc) for the reader's
>> >   understanding.
>> >
>> > This is more, a natural extension and rationalization of an existing
>> norm,
>> > and puts SELFPUB on a platform with other material of a like nature.
>> Worth
>> > proposing?
>> >
>> > FT2
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> Sure there's something you can do: fix the definition of reliable
>> >> source.
>> >>
>> >> Or, isn't this the point of IAR?
>> >>
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > WikiEN-l mailing list
>> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG