[WikiEN-l] Another sourcing problem

[FT2]

This is a point comon to all codification.

For those who have clue about wiki, yes. For the many who don't, are
learning, do not want to be bitten, might be over-aggressive in
adding/criticising/removing, or want clearer guidance, we have detailed
policies that capture key points.

So while ideally IAR does the trick in practice for mass editing it could
help. Especially where it interacts with our core content policies (and RS
-> Verifiability -> core to encyclopedic quality) the guidance may help a
lot in the cases it comes up.

Expanding SELFPUB from an anomalous exception to a principle  will help.

The wider principle is that if the originator of an online post is able to
be confirmed (author is not spoofed, publication on own website or one
controlled by him/her, etc), and has some kind of position to speak to the
point (salience, significant to article or NPOV), then we have enough to say
"X says Y" and the fact that X chose to say Y on a blog or self pub website
is not really an impediment.

FT2

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> IAR is cool. Basically it encapsulates that wiki work is for people who
> can operate in free-form environments. I think your interpretation might
> be agreed by those many Wikipedians in 2010 who fundamentally think
> "rules" are a Good Thing. I have some problems with that approach,
> because it's a working environment where things do not need to be
> Fordist, and initiative and the guts to hold out for the right result
> are to be encouraged. The interaction with RS is certainly problematic,
> though. We know RS is not entirely respectable in detail, but at a
> nutshell level it does represent what we want to do. It allows us to
> proceed ... in other words it needs to be read in spirit rather than
> letter.
>
> Charles
>