doc wrote: > Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> 2009/4/28 doc: >> >>> I disagree that the burden of proof is on the contributing author. The >>> burden is on those wishing to delete something to achieve a consensus to >>> delete. What level of "evidence" or "proof" will convince a consensus of >>> wikipedians is up to the wikipedians participating. I suspect many >>> people will be satisfied by different things. >>> >> The burden of proof has to be on the author. The person wishing to >> delete it would have to prove a negative, which is borderline >> impossible (in this case, anyway). How great the burden is is another >> question and, as you say, that depends on who is taking part in the >> discussion, but there is no choice about who the burden is on. >> > If that is true, the burden would be on those wishing to retain, rather > than the "author" (which is a concept best left out of wikipedia). > > But, as long as a consensus, with good reason, wish to retain, any > burden is discharged. While it makes sense that a contributor should have a prima facie burden of showing that his ideas were not pulled out of thin air, this is of necessity a limited burden. If someone wants to dispute that the contributor's source is not reliable, a blanket statement about that without evidence is an assumption of the contributor's bad faith.
Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
