Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 9

message: Yes. Common sense starts with choosing the correct ditionary defined words. Would you agree Zak?--Light current 22:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC
:No, common sense involves choosing the best (and least misleading) English we can; and then using judgment in not following it over a cliff. Dictionaries describe English; they do not control it. Septentrionalis 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please point me to the guideline that says that only the person addressed may respond to a point?  Thank you.  Also, can you please translate "KYFGS?" I got zero Google hits for it.  Thank you again. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Then use his talk page; that's what it's for. Septentrionalis 18:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if it leads to discussion which resolve the point of information under discussion, then it is productive discussion and satisfies WP:NPOV and would be common sense. Terryeo 00:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common sense 

message: :(response to SV) Modesty aside, you have explained what you intend "with reference to" to mean quite clearly. If we want to say that, "with respect to" might be better; "with reference to" has come to be a wooly periphrasis for "about" and should be avoided. Septentrionalis 21:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Sept. I'm adding below a response to LC that would involve rewriting that sentence, so perhaps we should wait until that's replied to. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interruption 

message: Is there consensus now to change the wording to:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to ascertain that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research. 
''
--Light current 14:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes but 'published by a reliable source' is already effectively in the existing wording. If its wrong, you should create a separate argument to correct it.! 8-|--Light current 15:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, this is a good time to get it right -- Wikipedia is not a race.  And the objection is so easily solved -- "published in a reliable source" should do fine.  Or, "in a reliable, published source."  Robert A.West (Talk) 15:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ill take your advice on the sematics here Robert! I assume that a publication (any publication) can be taken as a 'source'. 8-|--Light current 16:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the new intro, except that I would say "check" instead of "ascertain," because it's more straightforward. Francis, the "published by a reliable source" issue: by "reliable source," we mean the material, and the emphasis can be on the publisher of the material or writer of the material interchangeably. If, for example, a person normally regarded as a good source were to have something published on a neo-Nazi website, many editors would not accept it as a reliable source, because the story may not have been faithfully reproduced, and because it wouldn't have been fact- and libel-checked. Similarly, if the Guardian publishes a story by a completely unknown person, the story is regarded as a reliable source because the Guardian is a reliable publication. Cases where a reliable person publishes on an unreliable medium are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, because we can't legislate for every eventuality. But in general when we say "this is a reliable source," we mean "this piece of text, or this broadcast, can be trusted," because what we're judging is the process of publication: that the material was properly checked and edited. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant to add: so it's clear from the intro that we're saying the material must already have been published reliably, and we leave open whether the reliability attaches to a publisher or a person, but in fact most often it will be the publisher. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well Slim, if you like it, when do you think we could actually put the new wording into effect on the page without it being reverted?--Light current 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added with the change of "ascertain" to "check" as per SM's. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 22:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Jossi! 8-))--Light current 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: Given that a true neologism is by definition not verifiable, wouldn't it make sense to create a speedy tag for articles about a neologism?  I ran across a neologism a few days ago with zero Google hits, and an admin went apoplectic when I tagged it for a speedy delete.  It seemed only a matter of common sense to me that an article entirely based upon a policy violation finds itself speedied.  It's not like anyone could rewrite such an article in a way that would make it acceptable.  Rklawton 00:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a topic is truly not verifiable, then yes it should be deleted. The issue is in determining if it is not verifiable. I don't think we need a separate speedy tag for it because verifying that something is not verifiable is not something that can be done immediately. - Taxman Talk 14:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neologisms

message: Im very sorry to appear to be a pain in the ass to everyone, 8-(  but I've just noticed that the intro mentions the word 'material'. This implies that we are lifting stuff verbatim from published sources. I suggest changing this word to 'information'.--Light current 00:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Material is better, because information implies that it's true. The sentence doesn't imply that we are plagiarizing. It says we only publish material that has already been published, not that we copy it word for word. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LC, "verifiability" isn't grammatical in that second sentence. It is verifiable because it can be checked, not verifiability because it can be checked. It really is fine as it is. The constant tweaking is causing deterioration. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not horribly keen on the wording. It is rather ambiguous and I share the concern that bickering will break out over whether it contradicts the policy on copyrights, even though it's absurd to think that it does. Slim, I think we are all aware that there is no such thing as an argument too absurd for some Wikipedians to make! I agree that "information" is not an improvement but we want a word that is a substitute for "facts" that does not have the implied value judgement of "facts", because what we mean is the "matter" of what is added must have been published elsewhere. I do not believe that the sentence should be edited again hastily, but this should be considered. The problem with this sort of article is that most experienced editors have a good grasp on what we mean here, but it's a good idea not to rely on that and to write policies as tightly as possible. Grace Note 02:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Grace Note, would you mind reverting to my 02:04 June 22 version. A new account added nonsense while I was editing, and I inadvertently saved it, but I'm out of reverts thanks to the constant self-published section removal. He added something about how we go for truth via verifiability, but we don't, and it's horrendous writing in any event. I agree with you that this hasty editing should stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need. I was bold. After all, the discussion had not finished. -- Alias Flood 02:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly my reason for restoring the article to its original form and my reference to the unfinished discussion. -- Alias Flood 02:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Or returning to the previous version. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "material" as used in the previous version did not have this problem. AvB ÷ talk 13:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A pain in the ass 

message: Terry and Kenosis, can you say why you prefer "a threshold" to "the threshold." It seems to me that the latter is accurate. There is one threshold for inclusion, and that is "verifiability by reference to a reliable, published source." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Must be The and not A, otherwise we need another policy to describe all other thresholds... ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 01:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And one is trouble enough. :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no preference.  There were two issues going on (), one a revert of Francis Schonken's last edit, the other a proposed change by Terryeo.  If it was Crum375's intent to revert both, he did not say so.  Best that Terryeo's edit was dealt with on its substantive merits, or lack thereof. ... Kenosis 01:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definite versus indefinite article