Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Role of truth

message: This discussion is not relevant for Wikipedia. Wikipedia was never about "truth" but about reporting what published sources say about a subject. If some editors do not like this concept, they can go and edit other wikis such as Conservapedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A yet another example of blatant disrespect of some wikipoliticians to fellow wikipedians. `'mikka 19:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No one is forcing you to take part in any discussion. Wikipedia is about whatever its members think it's about. If you don't like that concept, I suggest you fork off and make your own wiki. Grace Note 09:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by my statement. You re welcome to discuss nuances within the core policies, but I would continue to argue that this discussion and its peculiar timing detracts from this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Steven, you have an unfortunate habit of using "we" to exclude others when in fact "we" includes them. Wikipedia does not have laws handed down on tablets. Its laws are made by the people it consists of. If they are flawed, it's perfectly reasonable that we should talk about fixing them. If you don't believe they are flawed, it's perfectly reasonable for you to defend them. I don't see your doing so though. I see you trumpeting their rightness without bothering to substantiate your position. Jossi simply wishes to close down debate. I will continue to disrespect that just as I do in every instance that a KoolAider insists on trying to do it. Grace Note 05:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant discussion 

message: It appears you've all worked very hard to define Wikipedia's policy of "verifiability".  Bravo!  I was just wondering what a "reliable source" was when I happened across this:
*"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses."
Then I just had to ask what's a "reliable publication process"?  Who decides whether an author is "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand"?  Who decides the reliability of a source in relation to its "context"?
I was also wondering about the quote I keep seeing on this page about attributability:
*"reflect truth for some notable category of people"
I was just wondering what this actually means?  What's a "notable category of people", and who decides whether a category of people is notable or not?  And how do you decide whether or not something reflects "truth" for that category of people?  Is that done by a scientific survey or something?
I didn't find any links on these items.  Maybe someone here can enlighten me?  Thanks. SqlPac 17:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Job!

message: Factually accuracy is required for Good Article status and Featured Article status.  It is more important is that the article is coherent with itself and its sources it is attributed to.  Attribution is not enough.  The approach away from factual accuracy is original research.  So avoiding original research should be enough for factual accuracy.
The facts are determined by the consensus among a group of intellectuals.  Facts are created by man.  Facts are justfied by rationality.
The truth is not determined by the consensus among a group of intellectuals.  The truth is not created by man.  Truth is not justified by rationality.
The former is more important for Wikipedia.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 18:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy