Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 10

message: There seems to be an awful lot of reverting here. Can you all try to sort it out at this talk page? It looks bad to have an edit war over a policy page. I've protected the page for the moment. AnnH ♫ 00:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks ML.  There's a strong consensus for protection above: #Ten changes a day?. Jayjg (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck, I don't even think most of us care that whether the wrong version was protected.  Stop the madness!  ;-) Robert A.West (Talk) 01:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. Thank you, Ann. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would prefer the 3 policies, this NPOV and NOR be protected all of the time and changes only happen to them after concensus on their discussion page.  Of course, that would require about a once a day visit by someone who could implement agreed upon changes.  With so many editors speaking so many languages, some organization is better than none, some stability better than none.  Terryeo 19:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second the motion, FWIW. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree. -Will Beback 00:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 05:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm on board. FeloniousMonk 05:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Count me in. AvB ÷ talk 08:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I also agree with this idea.  Yamaguchi先生 09:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with it too. This makes it a more formal (and polite) procees as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too.  The policy pages are themselves cited so often in disputes all over Wikipedia that we cannot afford to have their content messed up in edit wars arising from those disputes!  --Coolcaesar 20:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I also agree. Just the main policy pages. SilkTork 12:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: In the section on "sources" perhaps we should add, at the outset, that "When adding a verifiable content it is essential to provide enough information that the source can be found and checked.  The more precise the content, the more precise the source must be." or something like that. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would this addition address, Slrubenstein? Is that not implied already in the existing text? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed addition 

message: Is a student newspaper a valid primary source of a racial slur in regards to a living persons page? A student newspaper has said that a particular media personality made a racial slur to a teen. This quote is not attributed at any other location other then blogs that link back to the student newspaper. Is this a valid primary source under these conditions? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This source will be only valid on an article about this specific student's newspaper. Most definitively not as a source for a biography of a living person. See: WP:BLP. Also note that personal blogs are not acceptable as secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 17:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student Newspaper 

message: What should we do when multiple verifiable and reliable sources contain conflicting information? Peteresch 17:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We report the conficting information by citing these sources and attributing the conficlting POVs to those that hold them. Read WP:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 17:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Almost true. If it is a scientific or medical subject we report what the scientific consensus is, citing a recent, authoritative review. If no consensus has emerged yet we report that fact and state who holds what view (and why). We also report significant minority views but avoid giving undue weight to them. See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Dr Zak 17:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly. Well said. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting Sources 

message: All information included in Wikipedia must be verifiable. The criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We seek truth but do not lead the way. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research. Fred Bauder 02:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, no. We do not seek truth, we publish beliefs. The Wikipedia of 2000 years ago was Pliny's Natural History, who reported that the Blemmyes lived in Africa and, well, other things, that he found in his sources. Dr Zak 02:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "report" would be better, but perhaps the policy should not talk about "truth" at all, except to discourage editors from thinking they have the truth. However, if the phrase "verifiability, not truth" is kept, it needs some clarification which possibly requires statements about truth, and still, we do in a way seek the truth. If there were reliable accounts of Africa that discount the existence of Blemmyes there, then those would be included as well, and a statement about Pliny's history would be, as is still done: "According to Pliny,...". —Centrx→talk • 03:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dr. Zak. "We seek truth" is a huge can of worms, as it will force us to define what "truth" is. Better to stick with what we do best: describing the assertions of truth by others as published by reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 03:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we publish knowledge, well-founded belief. Fred Bauder 04:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Publishing well-founded belief" isn't the same as "seeking truth". I'm not so sure about the "truth" bit either, as Wikipedia is in the business of knowledge. To make that quite clear, how about "We do not seek truth, instead we publish well-founded belief". Dr Zak 04:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not comfortable with "We do not seek truth", after all, trying to find out what has happened is the point of consulting a compilation of published knowledge. Fred Bauder 11:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ideally, Wikipedia conveys knowledge, which is true. Verifiability establishes that such knowledge must be found in reliable sources and not individual heads. —Centrx→talk • 11:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop using the t-word! :)  Why not just say "we synthecize what reliable sources have said". Wjhonson 01:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How about this?

message: All information included in Wikipedia must be verifiable. The criterion for inclusion is verifiability. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Material which has not yet been published in a reliable source may not be included in a Wikipedia article.
Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies.  The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace.  They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three.  These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles. Fred Bauder 17:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're going to have a problem saying "any reader must be able".  What if a reliable source is obscure and only found in fifteen libraries in the world?  Someone will claim that it's in-practice impossible to verify. Wjhonson 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Try again; how about this?

message: Changed my mind and reverted, but please explain why:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.
Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies.  The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace.  They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three.  These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles.
is better than:
All information included in Wikipedia must be verifiable. The criterion for inclusion is verifiability. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Material which has not yet been published in a reliable source may not be included in a Wikipedia article.
Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies.  The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace.  They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three.  These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles.
Fred Bauder 18:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As above re: 'threshold' and 'truth'. The mention of truth is important to retain, because the people who need to read this policy tend to be under the mistaken impression that they can publish anything they believe to be true. I just object to the juxtaposition of "verifiability" with "not truth" in an overly terse phrase, for reasons stated earlier. More verbose phrasing would fix the counterintuitive implication that verifiability and truth are mutually exclusive, but moving toward verbosity rubs some people the wrong way and tends to elicit cries of 'redundant', a rejection that seems to have the effect of dismissing the cause for concern altogether. :/ —mjb 20:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to saying "The criterion", because Verifiability is not the sole criterion: the statement must avoid original research and be NPOV, at minimum, and must earn its keep with style, relevance, etc.  While "The threshold" is not perfect in this regard, it suggests that we let verifiable statements in the door for an interview, but that we are not obliged to let them take up residence unless they meet other criteria. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good way of putting it, Robert. :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Justify this

message: I have created a new template,  that bears the same relation to  that  bears to .  This will help distinguish at a glance among three cases:
#You provided no source.
#I have a source that disputes yours.
#Your source does not support your edit.
I can think of a couple of articles where this template could help focus on the actual point of dispute. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: Phi Alpha Literary Society
Precis 12:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting question, which has come in terms of other materials of limited circulation. Much of the article, however, should be supported by the Phi Alpha Catalogue 1845-1890, of which the IC Library has four copies. Try interlibrary loan. Septentrionalis 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does one go about verifying the sources on this page? 

message: I've noticed some work being carried out on this article. Is there a simple summary of the outstanding issues, or has everything been resolved now? Stephen B Streater 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: Quote:
:A press release sourced directly to the corporation is preferable to a write-up in the press as a representation of that corporation's official view on the legislation.  Whether that view should be included in any particular article is outside the purview of this policy. --Tony Sidaway 21:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this also apply to non-corporate sources?

message: Is there any present need for protection of this page? Can we try an experiment? Septentrionalis 17:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that this page has been protected long enough. It is time to unprotect it. Even if this backfires by unprotecting this page, an admin can always re-protect the page again. I see no harm in doing this as long as a couple of administrators include this page in their watchlist. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Has this page been protected long enough?

message: An editor has posted a request here on how to indicate, on a living person, that you have permission from them, to post details from their biography, that although created by the subject, were published in an otherwise reliable source.  The content was previously removed as a copyvio, but the source, is releasing copyright.  How do you handle that, so other editors are aware on the page?  Please respond to that talk page, not here. Wjhonson 02:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, how are they releasing it? I believe that we require it to be released under GFDL. See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for more discussion. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC Rah Crawford