Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 5

message: Non-verifiable!
--Knucmo2 14:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability is...

message: ===Main press===
press don't always take the information from press agency or people working for them...
sometimes they takes the information from another parution,for example a local newspaper
that lead to problems
*for example if someone publish a hoax on internet and this is taken by a not so credible newspaper and itself taken by a more and more credible one...then you have unverified content into "reputable publisher"
there are known example but at this moment i have none of them in mind
*another example is april fools
a french magazine "science et vie junior" that is a well known scintific magazine targeted at young people(teenagers)   has a fake article on the april parution...and you don't know wich article is fake...until the next mounth parution wich reveals it
so an important newspaper told that cell phones were making "pousser des poils dans les oreilles(don't know how to traduce it in english)"(to be verified)
so even with reputable publisher you need to be carefull
===about scientific articles and magazine===
exept the "science et vie junior thing" normaly scientific parution in magazines such as nature are verified before the parution... but i what is the exact process of verification(mabe they check also the protocol of experiencies...that is crucial in science because you have studies that says something and others that claim the contrary)
Normaly the people publish result of studies on specialised location on the internet(don't remember where) then it goes into specialised publications such as neuroscience magazines for neuroscience studies and then it goes into scientific magazine such as nature,then into magazines of scientific vulgarisation(such as science et vie(french magazine...please tell us if there are more well known and international ones)) and then into the press
And so if the parutions on magazines such as nature are verified they are credible but sometimes there are errors that can pass trough this for example an error about the universal constant...they had made an error calculating their variation trough the time and thoat that they had vary much more than the reality
There is also a carefull interpretation to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.31.173 (talk • contribs) 
:Since the standard for Wikipedia, as currently stated in the policy, is verfiability, not truth, the first consideration in whether to use a source is whether it is reliable. Now I would not use a source, even if it were normally reliable, if I knew that other reliable sources contradicted it. But determining whether an item in a normally reliable source is true, or an April Fool's joke, or something else, is original reasearch. If you are uncomfortable with information that appears in a reliable source, look around to see what other reliable sources have. If reliable sources disagree on something, you may have to note that in the article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I say the hell with verifiability if the reference is not true, or has falsehoods. OIn the Bigfoot page, skeptics are quoting very bad authors who make errors and pass on really, really
false and bad stuff.I feel the skeptics here __choose_ those bad authors to support their own case.
As for NPOV, here I am, on Wiki, a resident Bigfoot expert, and I am not allowed to post my experiences because there ARE NO JOURNALS THAT DISCUSS BIGFOOT. And all books are two years or more behind the times. 
Let us not forget -- this is Not Brittanica. It is a big website. Nothing more.
beckjordBeckjord 07:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No, this is an encyclopedia, which is why we don't allow original research. If you can get your research published by a credible third party, we can use it as a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I understand your frustration, but we have no way of vetting editors, so we have to require published sources. You can, however, question the reliability of a source per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "reputable publisher" and press ???

message: exept the "science et vie junior thing" normaly scientific parution in magazines such as nature are verified before the parution... but i what is the exact process of verification(mabe they check also the protocol of experiencies...that is crucial in science because you have studies that says something and others that claim the contrary)
Normaly the people publish result of studies on specialised location on the internet(don't remember where) then it goes into specialised publications such as neuroscience magazines for neuroscience studies and then it goes into scientific magazine such as nature,then into magazines of scientific vulgarisation(such as science et vie(french magazine...please tell us if there are more well known and international ones)) and then into the press
And so if the parutions on magazines such as nature are verified they are credible but sometimes there are errors that can pass trough this for example an error about the universal constant...they had made an error calculating their variation trough the time and thoat that they had vary much more than the reality
There is also a carefull interpretation to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.31.173 (talk • contribs) 
:Since the standard for Wikipedia, as currently stated in the policy, is verfiability, not truth, the first consideration in whether to use a source is whether it is reliable. Now I would not use a source, even if it were normally reliable, if I knew that other reliable sources contradicted it. But determining whether an item in a normally reliable source is true, or an April Fool's joke, or something else, is original reasearch. If you are uncomfortable with information that appears in a reliable source, look around to see what other reliable sources have. If reliable sources disagree on something, you may have to note that in the article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I say the hell with verifiability if the reference is not true, or has falsehoods. OIn the Bigfoot page, skeptics are quoting very bad authors who make errors and pass on really, really
false and bad stuff.I feel the skeptics here __choose_ those bad authors to support their own case.
As for NPOV, here I am, on Wiki, a resident Bigfoot expert, and I am not allowed to post my experiences because there ARE NO JOURNALS THAT DISCUSS BIGFOOT. And all books are two years or more behind the times. 
Let us not forget -- this is Not Brittanica. It is a big website. Nothing more.
beckjordBeckjord 07:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No, this is an encyclopedia, which is why we don't allow original research. If you can get your research published by a credible third party, we can use it as a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I understand your frustration, but we have no way of vetting editors, so we have to require published sources. You can, however, question the reliability of a source per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: about scientific articles and magazine

message: I have seen enough of editor's attempts to bypass verifiability that I feel we need to make it clear that the thre basic policies of WP, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are no-negotiable. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 05:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Then why can the ArbComm ignore WP:V?  (SEWilco 07:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No. If you swim against consensus, you should have the burden to prove something right or wrong. Anything else would be crazy; the vast majority of Wikipedia lacks unreferences. Even on the most reference-heavy pages, probably 99% of the text is unreferenced. Full references would be far larger than the articles they go with. 24.110.60.225 03:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-negotiable 

message: IMHO Wiki should give validity an equal position with verifiability. There are tons of bad books,
bad articles, bad interviews out there, and the public who reads Wikipedia expect up- to- date
info, based on truth,not just that it is "found" somewhere. The point should be "is it any good?"
"do others in that field agree?" "Is this old research, or new work?"
Since Wiki is basically a huge WEBSITE, it behooves Wiki to include TV interviews,(often archived on tape) and websites, not just old books and journals.
My two bits.
beckjord205.208.227.49 20:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure what you mean, but the proposed redraft of current policy that is on Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp stresses that verifiability doesn't just mean that there is a source, but that that source must be reputable. Does this cover your point? jguk 18:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: flawed concept