Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 58

src: thinking.is.ed.ac.uk

Video Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 58

Apakah satu sumber cukup untuk mengatakan fakta dapat diverifikasi?

Obviously, there is no "right" answer to this question, because the answer depends on the quality of the source... but... I think this is a question related to our discussion of accuracy, and it is worth discussing. Ideally, we should encourage editors to check the information three times before they add it to an article, by reading what many sources say. They will then know whether to present the information as "fact" or as "opinion". If more editors do this, it will at least lower the probability of inaccurate material being introduced because they read it somewhere. Blueboar (talk) 23:40, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

I think in some cases it may be "enough" if the source is a very high authority, e.g. a Nobel laureate writes about their own topic. In other cases, I always try to add more than one source and I think the user should be encouraged to add more than one source. But in fact we are lucky lately if we even have a reliable single source . As described above, the List of publishing companies themselves appeared one day and it is amazing how widely they are used. So we can talk about sources, verification etc., but in self-published publisher trenches (and even worse blog sites) spread all over the place. So we have to push this but the situation in the field is far from ideal. History2007 (talk) 05:17, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Provided God made the statement. But then you may need to prove to us that it is the true God. (and not a space fraudster) But in all seriousness, if only one source discusses the item, you do not have to worry about the assurance, as this may not be WP: NOTABLE yet. - Avanu (talk) 05:21, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

As a side note that the debate continues and many people are still trying to figure out what God is saying, and who the original publishers are... joking, of course. But in the case of a solid writer, I do not think one WP reference: RS should be disallowed. History2007 (talk) 05:28, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Avanu, I read the question as asking if one fact can be verified correctly by a single source; one or both of us misunderstand the original question. If I understand the question correctly, I would say that the right answer is "almost always". I calculated exactly five situations where some quotations are presented for the same piece of information in the current flagship article; I may have ignored some of them, but most of the information relies on quotations of only one source at a time. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

I think I need to revise my answer a bit too. You can 'say' a verifiable fact without having a single source. WP: V explicitly says you can insert material into any article without any attribution . The problem arises when another editor (or reader may) ask you to verify the item. So, if you say, well, this is ONE source. Ha! I have verified that... the case is closed! And they say... no, sorry I still do not think it's good enough, then rinse and repeat until CONSENSUS editor says it's verified for their satisfaction. So the right answer is, if no one complains, it's amazing. If not, get consensus. Also, do not call 'facts'. This confuses the philosophers. - Avanu (talk) 05:37, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- I think this is best handled on a case-by-case basis although you can argue that WP: GNG, WP: WEIGHT , and WP: FRINGE will store such flash in the pan reference of most articles. Chances are if only one source is talking about this information then you might see something WP: FRINGE - BruceGrubb (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

To clarify... I'm not talking about the number of sources the editor should quote ... I'm talking about how much research editors have to do before they can determine that a bit of information is facts (as opposed to opinions, or unwanted errors).

This is not something we can mandate in Policy... we obviously can not say "You have to find X the number of sources that all agree that Y is a fact before you present Y as fact in an article. "But I think it would help if we encourage editors to check and read many sources, and not rely on a single source. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Again I have to ask how WP: GNG, WP: WEIGHT, and WP: FRINGE does not currently fit this bill? - BruceGrubb (talk) 14:41, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they... but, WP: V can do a better job of explaining how . Remember that WP: V is often the first policy that a new editor pointed out... so it is necessary (I think) to spend some extra time pointing to a new editor for the relevant policy and explaining how the policy and the guidelines affect the concept confirmation. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

I agree we need how WP: V and WP: GNG, WP: WEIGHT, WP: FRINGE, Etc must work together but WP: V itself really where do we want to do things like that? Personally WP: V should have a little blub that basically says 'You can experience this situation but details about how the address is provided in x, y, and z)' Let's not go Rube Goldberg in WP: V, ok? - BruceGrubb (talk) 19:39, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

One source is enough. Ãƒ, At Taquan Air, I can only find one Examiner source stating that Senator Ted Stevens (R Alaska) is a qualified launcher The examiner is blacklisted, but in many cases the author who wrote wrote for the Examiner, and after petition, the administrator on Wikipedia will remove certain pages from the Wikipedia blacklist. They did it. There is no reason to doubt that Senator Stevens is a qualified float-plane, he is a decorated World War II pilot, and floatplanes represent valuable constituents and useful transport modes. One source is enough. Not worried (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
WP: GNG is not a content guide Ãƒ, The wp: notability concept exists independently of the existence of articles on Wikipedia or the content of such articles. See also: [WP: The N # Notability guide does not restrict content in an article] and [: Categories: Wikipedia content policy]. Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree: GNG is about whether you can have an entire article on the subject. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you can mention the facts given in larger articles And IMO one viable source is a lot for a piece of typical information. WEIGHT will not exclude some basic pieces of information. For example, we always include a date of birth and death in the biography, even if one of these dates is mentioned by only one source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One source is enough, except when extraordinary claims require tremendous resources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 58

Ideas for new section on accuracy

This is an idea that arises from the mediation we have about the words of lede. Some people in mediation fear that "assurance, not truth" has been used (in their view, abused) to stop people eliminating the glaring inaccuracies that come from verifiable sources. Others worry that words that make it easier to remove imprecations can leave the way wide open for tendentious removal.

Basically the same question has been discussed on this talk page recently in the thread "Not an example of truth".

An idea that appears in mediation, is that lede may not be the place to resolve this - it might be better to include a new section in the policy body .

We've tried a few words on the mediation talk page. Some participants (including mediators) suggested we move the discussion back here. Let's see if there is enough support for RfC.

The words below are edits by myself, based on the previous ones by my learned colleagues. (It's an overview of everyone in Wikipedia.) Like everything in WP, this is a running job... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:28, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:28, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

We are not sitting in court on a reliable source. If they do not agree, we record the dispute. If everything except one source says something, we note the difference and handle it with the appropriate weight. We do not suppress credible sources, even if widely believed to be untrue: we balance inaccuracies by pointing to the number of evidence pointing in the other direction, not by deciding that minority views that do not agree with the mainstream can be excluded from the article.

In addition, I generally agree with this encouragement. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

I do not read where WP: V says, "Extraordinary claims require tremendous resources." If an editor can not sit on the judgment of a trusted source with extraordinary claims, the editor can not require an incredible source. It also seems to be indicated contrary to WP: The IRS, which says, for example, "Proper procurement always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an integral part of the process." Ãƒ, Summary These IRS Points are in WP: Inaccuracies # Attachments: Reliability in context. WP: ELNO # 2 believes that editors can tell if a website contains "inaccurate material". Unscintillating (talk) 02:56, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

We do not suppress credible sources, even if they are widely believed to be untrue: we balance inaccuracies by pointing to the amount of evidence pointing in the other direction - this will often end up generating WP : Weight of UNDUE on the difference. - The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

You are completely and definitely wrong. WP: UNDUE expects us to "fairly represent all significant points of view that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the superiority of each point of view", and includes a warning that minor minor views need not be discussed at all. My expression above is just a re-statement from UNDUE, and UNDUE can not be used against itself: If we include controversy in proportion to the prevalence of the RS, we are completely DUE, and that's it. (note: fix 'lost' in my original, and your quote about that.) Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

With that theory, newspaper retraction may be a "peripheral perspective" that does not have enough weight to consider. On March 3, 2012, at least half a dozen media around the world reported that the baby was detonated 10 miles (16 km) by a tornado. The editor must worry that the baby is blown north while the tornado goes to the East, and that local sources do not mention the story. The article is 2-3 March 2012 tornado outbreak, and the sentence is quickly removed. Unscintillating (talk) 21:43, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Re:

If you decide whether to add new information to the article, but you think, based on other sources, that the source contains errors, you can choose to rely on those other sources instead.

This has the problem that not all errors in publishing trusted sources are discussed in a reliable source that can be published. The keywords we should use are "proof", not "source". As stated in WP: Inaccuracy #Approaches to report potentially inaccurate material, "As with any other editorial decree, editors should consider the form of evidence available." Ãƒ, For example, the editor's personal experience, as reported in WP: Accuracy # Attachment: Reliability in context for the case in Oslo, is evident.
This is also misleading because it leaves the impression that inaccuracy is the reason for removing material from the encyclopedia. Inaccurate materials may or may not have weight gain, and we have an example of Dewey defeating Truman as a case in which we reported inaccurate material.

Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

The problem with editors makes content decisions based on personal experience is this: How can other editors (who are not in Oslo at the time) check what they say they are experiencing? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:29, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

WP: The IRS does not consider this a problem. WP: The IRS states, "The reliability of the source depends on the context, each source must be carefully weighed to assess whether it is reliable for the statement made and is the best source of that kind for that context." Ãƒ, Unscintillating 12:31, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

I started with a version of Kalidasa 777 and came up with the following.

I got four links at the end of the Kalidasa 777 version. The first is the policy, the second seems almost at the policy level with respect to reliability, while the latter two are essays that I'm not sure of.

BLP considerations may need to be added because the bar is lower to remove material sourced from a questionable BLP. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:18, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

I should say that I like the version -Bob K31416 though WP: IAI does not discuss what to do with information that can be verified as inaccurate so I would recommend something along the line- this line:

I do not want editors to think only because one or more conflict sources must be inaccurate.-- BruceGrubb (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, an important point. Binksternet (talk) 08:03, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Above, JClemens says: We are not sitting in the assessment of a reliable source. If they do not agree, we record the dispute. If everything except one source says something, we note the difference and handle it with the appropriate weight. We do not suppress credible sources, even if widely believed to be untrue: we balance inaccuracies by pointing out dominant evidence pointing in another direction, not by deciding that minority views that do not agree with the mainstream can be excluded from the article. is a controversial redlink even though there are two academic sources for it; that's why our article on species mentions evolution but does not mention baraminology; and that is why our article on the Apollo program has nothing to do with lunar conspiracy theories on the moon. There are sources that meet WP: RS for all of these things, but in the relevant articles, they have been completely suppressed. I can go on and on, but in reality I think this is enough to show that editors actually sit in court at a reliable source, and they actually make judgments to remove material that can be obtained from articles, and my position is that they are right to do so. We should document this more widely spread practice in WP: V.-- S Marshall T/C 08:48, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Assessing (and then summarizing) the source is one of the core activities/requirements to write an encyclopedic article, so yes the JClemes line is completely wrong as stated. But the line may be due to policy misconceptions (NPOV & Co), that we usually do not judge on differing or entirely newly-established opinions/(in scientific societies) universally accepted theories, but merely describe them (including critics published). And it may also be from the fact that published knowledge (= content from credible sources) usually defeats personal knowledge and that we do not allow arbitrary personal corrections from reliable sources, but we prefer to fix them as a clear error all knowledgeable editors agree (say typos, simple "miscalculation", misquote) and/or other (more) reliable sources (in that context) support correction.-- Kmhkmh (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2012 ( UTC)

No, I'm not wrong. We can assess the reliability of the source, which is WP: RS/N, but once the source is considered reliable, we have no basis to say "No, wait, it's wrong". It will be WP: OR, and is the curse of WP: V. Let us not forget that Wikipedia is not responsible for getting 100% things right: RS'es, which is not owned by Wikipedia, has an accurate responsibility. To avoid the OR, we need to be limited to no more accurate than our best RS. Perfection is unattainable and undesirable; if we cover all human knowledge to the level of accuracy made by the best hospitals, we will do something amazing magically. Do not let the perfect be a good enemy; accept that we are constrained and embrace the pillars, because to leave our dependence on RS'es is to throw us into chaos, where everyone encourages their own pet interpretation, on the grounds that certain hospitals are inaccurate, or the like. Jclemens (talk) 20:56, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- Actually, Jclemens we do have as a basis to say "No, wait , That is wrong ". I have repeatedly given examples of how it can be achieved. If a reliable source talks about Washington DC in 1785 or something that happened in the state of Utah in 1890 we can clearly state "No, wait, it's wrong" because those places are not there. those times as shown by others RS.-- BruceGrubb (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we're not. We have a lot of other hospital evidence indicating that typographical errors are no more than a "small minority", and can and should be excluded without sacrificing UNDUE. We do not need to declare that the hospital is wrong, because lack of concurrent support is already enough for us not to mention it. Assessment of truth is not necessary - we assess more reliable sources and, on closed topics, which will basically reflect the best consensus understanding on Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, April 23, 2012 (UTC

Yes yes we do. This is more of a question of how we express and whether the policy explicitly needs to state that minority cases there are usually no disputes as well when it happens. But that does not change the fact that we judge the reliability and correctness of the information in reliable sources and in "minor minority scenarios" even improve it as well, but we do not do it only on personal or false opinions. , but carefully compare and weigh the "all" sources available. I agree we need a strong policy to keep editors from getting lost and I agree that minor minority scenarios do not need to be explicitly discussed. Therefore the current policy formulation is actually fine with me.

However we will have a problem, when we get an increasing number of editors who take the policy too literally in every case (as absolute) regardless of the context and hence conclude that the editor's work at WP does not involve any judgment/compare/weighing source (at all) and only "transcriptional monkey stuff". Because then we reach the point where it becomes an obstacle to every writing that is understood and a proper summary.-- Kmhkmh (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments - While this is all true, your example is less about Verifiability own and more about NPSA (No Stands Policy Alone). The example of glucojasinogen seems to have Wikipedia: The problem of Notability (what exactly is is? I do not have a clear hint and the existing article does not help Heck no reliable single references or vice versa in all) -baraminology and Apollo program-landing particles conspiracy theorists are a prime example of WP: FRINGE.

Is there anything in this policy that prohibits editors from deleting or excluding reliable sources that they think are wrong? If yes, please provide quotes and links. thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:02, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Um, WP: BURDEN? Jclemens (talk) 21:04, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

I did not see it there. Please quote as requested. thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:09, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

That is a valid valid question, and I do not see the answer in WP: BURDEN as well. My guess is that WP: PRESERVE covers it. Is that true? History2007 (talk) 21:23, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

I also did not see it. Quote? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Starting from: "Maintain the appropriate content. As long as any fact or idea added to the article will be a" done "part, the article should be stored..." ends with "... instead of deleting text, consider: repeat or re-copy to improve grammar. "That's what it says. History2007 (talk) 21:34, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

I see that and it does not prohibit deletion of material that the editor says wrong.

"Maintain the appropriate content." - An editor may think the material is inappropriate because it is wrong.
"As long as the facts or ideas added to the article will be a" finished "article, they must be maintained..." - Editor can think that facts or ideas are not included in "finished articles" because they are wrong.

- Bob K31416 (talk) 21:42, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not how you read it, per WP: V criteria for being in the article are not "true/false" but verifiable. Anyway, feel free to apply your policy interpretation to multiple pages and see what happens. Tell us. History2007 (talk) 21:46, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is how you read it, if you follow the policy. However, there are unwritten rules that editors use in practice, which can change from situation to situation, with a non-policy-based consensus determining what is fixed or running. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I've just seen your additional WP: V backups that show misunderstandings. Verifiability is not a criterion for being in an article, but a a criterion. And being right or wrong is a consideration in practice for verifiable material when it comes to excluding or deleting it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:16, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- No editor wants to enter information they think is wrong only because it can be verified. This is why I believe that the whole discussion about VnT is a waste of time. We tried to fix a problem that does not exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

They will do it if it suits their agenda, such as promoting old viewpoints or misconceptions that they prefer to support with wrong info rather than losing face by admitting they are wrong. It's just human nature. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:22, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

P.S. In fact, it does not even have to be a long-held misunderstanding. It could be just the position the editor takes in a hot discussion on Wikipedia, which gets to the point of wanting to win by any means. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:35, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Bob asks if the WP policy forbids the editor to delete a bit of info that the editor says wrong. In fact, WP policies rarely either prohibit or compel any , unless there are legal issues such as copyright. In general, the WP policy, like the Pirate Code, is not a hard and fast rule but rather a set of guidelines. I agree that WP: PRESERVE is relevant here.

What about WP: V? The traditional words of the intro, which illustrate that VnT as a "threshold", have sometimes been used (some say abused) to mean that you can not remove something that can be verified even if it is not true. The current version (locked, debated) includes the words: "All information on Wikipedia should be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also affect the content, verification does not guarantee inclusion."

Does that mean you should remove verifiable material only if you have a reason based on "other policies or guidelines"? Or does "no guarantee" mean you should feel free to dare to remove verifiable material for whatever reason you think is appropriate? It's really ambiguous... That's why I think that more needs to be said. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:34, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Re "Actually WP policy rarely prohibits or imposes anything" - WP: V prohibits the addition of non-verifiable material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:27, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the combination of (WP: PRESERVE WP: V) does not provide policy here. However, WP: V by itself is not and is never enough to be included, e.g. the fact that Elvis is recording a particular song may be completely verifiable, but may not have a place in an article about physics, etc. But when WP: RS refers relevant content, (WP: PRESERVE WP: V) navigate to the saved instead of deleted.

However I would suggest that you close this discussion (remembering that you started it) because I have serious and serious fears about its impact on quality by providing a gap that can be used to facilitate verification requirements. History2007 (talk) 00:34, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to continue the discussion on how to maintain certainty and quality. Unchintillating has just started a new thread below with Draft 4. I suggest it is the place to continue the discussion, and the three drafts in this thread can be considered alongside the new Uncintillating. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:02, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- "No editor wants to enter information they think is wrong only because it can be verified." Quest, that's not the case. The problem is as shown by the example that I have repeatedly given is the editor that failed to acknowledge the information provided is wrong.-- BruceGrubb (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: POV-pusher will not stop pushing POV in this section. Actually, this will not have the slightest effect on them. Likewise, this section will not get editors who refuse to admit that they are wrong to change their minds.

@BruceGrubb: OK, let's say we have an editor that fails to acknowledge the information given is incorrect. How will this section change their minds? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:54, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

I'm responding to your comment "No editor wants to enter information they think is wrong only because it can be verified.", which you admit is wrong.

Submit your latest comment "POV-pusher will not stop POV-pushing by this section.... Likewise, this section will not get editors who refuse to admit they're wrong to change their mind." - If you believe it , it seems you should believe the same about the whole policy. However, can you suggest what is required for the accuracy section to change your opinion about it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:13, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting that the words "accurate" and "wrong" begin to blend in here. Was the word "wrong" not invited to a party here? So please see the question at the bottom of why "accurate" is used instead of "true". History2007 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- As I tried to show you with an example Why We Fight above You can have a source that both accurate and inaccurate depending on how you want to use it. The example type of the "smoking gun" I show is very rare but the fact is that even months later you have an editor who says that even in clear and, more importantly, verifiable evidence, the source speaks of factual nonsense that should be used anyhow shows that VnT is being read in some really weird way.-- BruceGrubb (talk) 11:06, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy and "simplify"

Several times in the above discussion, History2007 states that dealing with accuracy will lead to "simplify" verification. I have to disagree with this, greatly. Accuracy is in addition to verification, not against it. The wrong statement for which the quotation can be found should be excluded, and this does not imply the entry of unverified material. Indeed, the urge to incorporate the wrong material is alone creating original research, because it creates false controversy and uncertainty. Anyone who has ever examined the "wealth" of the 9/11 conspiracy can see where it relies on a statement quote that is not true; there is no problem in rejecting this in preparing an account of an accurate event. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that 9/11 is one of the most controversial issues in the last decade, so I can not answer who is right/wrong there. However, what I'm thinking about is that the above argument shows two things:

With the best intentions you want to present information that you deem important to get to the reader.

Your argument has a good purpose, but it aims to bring the "truth" - whatever it is, while discussing the topic of accuracy.

So we now have a case where opening the door only one gap to handle "accuracy" will allow the T-word to run right behind it. Basically what I want to say. History2007 (talk) 21:16, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Re "So we now have a case where opening the door only one gap to handle" accuracy "will allow T-word to run right behind it." - Maybe you should explain that statement because it shows that you want to keep the accuracy and correctness of Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:00, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

I'm really trying to find out if each party really misunderstands the other. History2007, your continuing statement that other editors are trying to "simplify" the emerging policy into a WP: AGF big offense. I think - and for my own part, I am absolutely sure - that what the editor wants to do is to make sure that the information is obviously wrong factually (whether subsequent research has been convincingly proven, or whatever) is not included in the article just because some seemingly reliable sources have said it . It is a matter of common sense that our knowledge of fact changes over time. Bloodletting is used to be considered a "cure" for all types of diseases, as do many other things. I am absolutely convinced that the mainstream sources-their days can be found that provide a large amount of medical information that we now know not only to be "wrong" but to be actively dangerous. We discover new things all the time, and outdated concepts (no smaller particles of atoms, for example) should not be included in Wikipedia only on the basis that there are sources published for it. Unreliable sources can be "wrong". There is no perfect source. Generally reliable, yes; perfect, no. So when and when it is quite clear and verifiable that a source is wrong about something, we should not enter that information. Dewey defeats Truman. Yup, it could have an article to itself , as the headline, but we did not include, in any way, the tangible "facts" that Dewey defeated Truman in an article about Dewey, Truman, or campaign. That is pure common sense. But, as I said above, we seem to have a small population of editors who seem incapable of applying pure common sense to such things (no names and no drill packs); therefore we need need some sort of guidance. And pure reason is not original research. Pesky ( talk ) 00:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- No, there is absolutely no AGF question here. As I said, I think Mangoe has the best intentions. I, however, affirm that the opening of the door of accuracy will cause the T-word and watering of the cited scholarship favor or editor's opinion. And yes, I think a policy like that intends to keep the truth of subordinates to verified is "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements to be included in Wikipedia", and I think it should stay that way remembering RFC before. My position is clear: I prefer to quote a scholarship to an editor's opinion of the truth given that a well-meaning editor may not be as familiar with physics or computer science as the professor who wrote the book quoted. And that's what the policy says now: the assurance overwhelms the perceived truth. History2007 (talk) 02:04, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not truth" means that truth alone is not sufficient for material accepted by Wikipedia. It does not say anything about whether the wrong source material can be set aside. You can check this in WP: V versions and previous versions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:57, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to remember that there is some "common sense" coverage here. Copy for convenience:

Reliability in context is very different from inaccuracy , and the difference is the difference between verifiable sources with potential imprecision, and unreliable sources that fail WP: V. Evidence of inaccuracies may be used to refute unreliable sources in context.
Wikipedia content guidelines: Identify trusted sources create this statement:

The reliability of the source depends on the context. Each source must be carefully weighed to assess whether the source is reliable for the statement made and is the best source for the context.

The exact source is always dependent on the context; common sense and editorial judgment are an integral part of the process.

Determining which resources are appropriate depends on the context. The material must be associated with the text in which the source disagrees.

Whether certain news stories are reliable for certain facts or statements in Wikipedia articles will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Pesky ( talk ) 03:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The link points to Wikipedia: Inaccuracy that seems to be just a recent essay by a small number of editors. It does not seem to be a target of a significant community discussion at all. It appears that only the opinions of a small number of editors and hence have nothing to do with such issues, given their current and lack of community discussion. Indeed, at first reading the tone seems to indicate another way of WP: Truth. In fact I might suggest the incorporation of WP: Truth and WP: Accuracy given that their overlap may not be obvious to many readers. History2007 (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Policy interpretation
Please read WP: AUTIE! I am increasingly convinced that some of our differences about how policy should be interpreted come directly from the fact that we have people who only interpret things in different ways. For some, everything is completely interpreted literally in all situations; for others not. It's important that we ensure that what we mean in our policy is very clear for all editors. Otherwise, we end up with a hot argument when both parties argue from the standpoint of the conviction-both 100%, but neither side can understand the other's excuses at all. North8000 and Blueboar (and probably others who forgot I remember... ummm, yes, I think that makes sense) have done some great mini examples to clarify policy matters elsewhere. I think this is an important task. "Please sit" is not really meaning it. Pesky ( talk ) 01:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is understood by everyone here (I think ). We're just trying to figure out how to handle all the different interpretations. Nothing here, it's all new, really. (though, I guess I should mention that I'm not autistic at all, since you're raising it...)
--=, V = IR (Speak o Contribs) 02:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree Yes, I've seen this before in a discussion about VnT being an allusion. An allusion includes both literal and figurative Although there are some who say that VnT is meant to convey "shaking", there are others who only mean something literal. Ambiguity is the enemy of understanding. It takes effort to read ambiguity. The technique is to read the material first slowly and then quickly. Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Not just VnT stuff, this applies to a lot of things on the policy page that are not really clear. Although I am a highly functioning autistic person, I am also from a family of writers and I am used to all kinds of figures and other things. I like to think that I can function in the "interpreter" position, as it is, because I can see things (usually) both from the neurotypical point of view and the point of view of the autism spectrum. I can relate easily where A-spectrum people may be to find hiccups in reading and need to have things that are slightly re-worded (in a way that would still be perfectly clear for a neurotypical editor). I also teach quite a lot of autism spectrum people, and generally do not have much trouble in communicating.
@Not Perfect: a problem with ambiguity, as it may be those spectrum-autism, is that it not being ambiguity! That's clear! But definitely in a completely different way! The usual reaction (internally, once we learn to control our immediate verbalization of how we feel, lol!) Is "Well, why **** do not you say what you mean ! " Pesky ( talk ) 03:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me try this: the problem is not the fact that "verification not truth" is specifically being changed, it is a statement that is being redefined in the process. We have talked about where we have similarities above, and the fact that nobody here is really "wrong" --=, V = IR (Speak o Contribs) 4:05, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think I understand that! But it's 5:08 am, and I've been up all night! My current problem is that I feel so alone in trying to keep an eye on things happening in different places, to try and make sure that new changes do not bring us spectators into chaos uncertainty! In general I do not have many problems myself, but I can often see why other people have real problems with things, and simple misconceptions are often the root of what ended up being a big line. I really try my best, but it feels as though there's only one of me, and that's just like responsibility... Pesky ( talk ) 04:11, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Well, you know, the great thing is that this is a wiki. Anything you change can be changed again.
--=, V = IR (Speak o Contribs) 04:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Aahhh, but you make it sound so easy! And, as we can see, it's not easy. It's really not easy to get words in the changed policy, altogether, to ensure that the Autism-spectrum people are here (and I suspect it's probably a much higher percentage than many people think) to understand it easily at the first , without explanation. We have to go through all this. Fing is, though, the finger is... that if we get it so that the A-spectrum one can understand it first-go, neurotypical will also . This is not a good situation. One way, everyone understands easily; by other means, only some of us do it. Pesky ( talk ) 10:06, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

From my experience with wiki... anything changed can be changed again, but to wrong version .Ãƒ,: & gt;) Blueboar (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My version is always the correct version. You should know that now! @Pesky, I think you give "neurotypicals" too much credit. lol --=, V = IR (Speak o Contribs) 17:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ohm's Law, the version supported by Pesky currently replaces VNT with "Even if you believe something is true , it should be verified before you can add it". Do you feel that this "change" policy? I do not, I think it says exactly what SlimVirgin said in 2005 when he wrote it. But one of the many problems we have here is that different people say that VNT means different things (often very hard and sharp).-- S Marshall T/C 11:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

highlights striking; P
To be known, and as a courtesy, I am telling you that I have posted blatantly deviant messages in my conversation (which seems Autie-central, lol!) To other autonomous-spectrum editors (with a good understanding of the policies and tenure long) to come and help by trying to make sure that whatever we face, however we do it, works well for our all editors. We have a lot of autism spectrum editors here, and Wikipedia is like a honey trap for Aspies and auties, so I feel that it is vital that the words of our policy do not cause unwanted problems for significant segments from WikiCommunity. I'm sorry if this has offended anyone, but I can not bring a can to the entire WikiAutie community all by myself... it makes me feel sick: o ( Pesky ( talk ) 06 : 38, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
src: thinking.is.ed.ac.uk

The proposed addition to the Evidence load section
Proposal to add the following paragraph to the end. WP proof load: V.

To remove material that has inline citations to a reliable source, the load of the evidence lies with the editor that wants to delete it. If removal is disputed, consensus is required to remove it.

This section will look like the following.

the proof load is in the editor that adds or returns the material . You may remove any material that does not have inline quotations to trusted sources. Whether and how quickly deletions should occur depends on the material and overall state of the article; consider adding the required citation tag as a temporary measure. The editor may object if you delete the material without giving them time to provide a reference. It is always a good practice to try to find and quote their own sources of support. Do not leave unrefined or ugly material in an article if it can damage the reputation of a living person; You should also be aware of how BLP policies apply to groups.

To remove material that has inline citations to a reliable source, the load of the evidence lies with the editor that wants to delete it. If removal is disputed, consensus is required to remove it.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:38, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Opposing It turns out that WP: CONCENSUS is reversed. This editor boldly enters quoted and returned content for violating WP: NPOV, WP: BLP or whatever, the burden is in bold editor to get consensus for change, not vice versa. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Good points. My mistake. I withdraw the proposal as it is and will think about it again, and try to find improvement. Or maybe someone else will have suggestions on how to fix it. thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:58, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

If there is a load on the eraser, I would say it is to say why they deleted it (either edit summary or on the talk page). This is not a "burden of proof "... but "burden explanation " (and if contested, persuasion). However, this is not necessarily a Verifiability issue. Blueboar (talk) 21:29, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

You're right. The situation I'm trying to handle is where the editor deletes the sourced material because, by reason of the editor, the information at a reliable source is wrong. In that situation, it seems the editor must have a burden of proof for deletion and should ask for consensus if the removal is disputed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:21, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

WP: BURDEN is talking about a challenge in which a person thinks excluded material can not be verified... not a challenge where one thinks matter is inaccurate. (yes, it is unlikely that anyone will challenge an unverifiable material that they find accurate... but it can and does happen occasionally). When someone challenges whether the material is verified can , the only way to counter the challenge is to "prove" that the material can actually be verified can (by providing the source). Therefore Load on those who want to add or r
Source of the article : Wikipedia

Selasa, 26 Juni 2018