On 13/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> The job of WP:V is to make sure that assertions in Wikipedia are verifiable;
> it's not to ensure that verifiable stuff cannot be deleted.
> Editorial judgment -- we have to be allowed to judge the reliability of
> sources, and the quality of their research.
--- On Fri, 13/5/11, Carl (CBM) wrote:
> > "Verification not truth" must not be a suicide pact
> and certainly not an
> > excuse for sloppy publishing of gossip on BLPS.
>
> The idea that someone cannot challenge a source fact simply
> because
> they doubt its truth is very useful, though. It red
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Scott MacDonald
wrote:
> But my point is celebrity stories in newspapers, if they use unnamed or
> unattributable sources, are not reliable and should never amount to
> verification.
Unfortunately, the current language of WP:V not only declares that
professional n
Yup.
But my point is celebrity stories in newspapers, if they use unnamed or
unattributable sources, are not reliable and should never amount to
verification.
We might as well source things from random internet blogs and claim: "but
this is verification (it may be true or not, but we don't care a
On 13/05/2011, Scott MacDonald wrote:
> The point is that the story of "Otto the true earring-eating Dog of Kate
> Middleton" was also verifiable from multiple reliable sources, despite being
> a crock of shit. (Indeed you can find articles published as late as last
> week referring to
> "Kate's d
-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ian Woollard
Sent: 12 May 2011 23:56
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Otto Middleton (a morality tale)
>You see I would argue precisely the opposite; I th
On 12/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Mark,
>
> I agree that "verifiability, not truth" has done a good job in keeping out
> original research of the kind you describe. I just think that the situation
> with regard to OR is no longer what it was five years ago -- there has long
> been a critical m
Mark,
I agree that "verifiability, not truth" has done a good job in keeping out
original research of the kind you describe. I just think that the situation
with regard to OR is no longer what it was five years ago -- there has long
been a critical mass of editors who know that Wikipedia is not
On 5/11/11 2:40 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> A while ago there was a discussion at WP:V talk whether we should
> recast the policy's opening sentence:
>
> "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—
> whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been
> p
Hello (and please pardon the crossposting),
I am a Ph.D. researcher at the Digital Enterprise Research Institute in Galway,
Ireland. My Ph.D. topic is online discussions, specifically the reasoning and
arguments people use. I am currently studying Articles for Deletion in English
Wikipedia, to
10 matches
Mail list logo
