Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 13

message: Following discussion here, I'm going to propose that we include the following to the lead of each policy. In the case of the NPOV policy, this also includes removing a previous quote on the matter which has been superseded.
: In the words of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, "I consider all three of these to be different aspects of the same thing, ultimately. And at the moment, when I think about any examples of apparent tensions between the three, I think the right answer is to follow all three of them or else just leave it out of Wikipedia."
For the sake of clarity, please discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. --Barberio 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to include (and in one case use as a replacement) the 'trinity' quote. 

message: Does verifiability require that everyone may easily verify? I believe not; I believe that it only requires verifiability in principle. User:NYScholar seems to be arguing otherwise in this edit. Since he refers me to this page, and since I'm not terribly concerned with the particular issue in the particular article, I'm concerned with the principle, I thought I'd bring the matter here.
NYScholar says, "A source has to be verifiable by ALL Wikipedia readers, not just someone who belongs to an organization that has sent out flyers to its members." There are two different statements here. I agree with the second, but not the first. That is, if something can only be verified by members of an organization, that is probably way too narrow (especially because they would, in many cases, be expected to share a particular political view, etc.)  but I do not agree that a source has to be verifiable by ALL Wikipedia readers. For example, many readers of the English-language Wikipedia can read only English; many books are not widely available; many documents (legal documents, scientific papers) might be physically available, but beyond most people's ability to read them; etc. 
On the specific of a flyer sent to members: this is not, in principle, an unverifiable source, as long as either (1) someone has a copy of the flyer and can make it available in response to queries or (2) some library has it a collection of ephemera. It has roughly the same problems as any other primary source. I would agree that if (for example) the organization denies every having issues such a flyer the matter might require a strong secondary citation saying the the flyer was real but I see no reason to think that possible forgeries are not really more of an issue here than elsewhere. - Jmabel | Talk 00:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the verifiability requirement means that, in theory, anyone can access the source; i.e., that there are no artificial restrictions, such as membership in an organization, on access. In practice, we recognize that sources vary in their accessibility, so that it might be very inconvenient for many readers to examine a particular source. I think a minimum practical requirement would be that a source is available in at least several widely scattered public places (e.g., major open-access libraries) and in a form accessible to many readers (i.e., not in an extinct language known only to a few scholars). -- Donald Albury(Talk) 03:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that with regard to documents published to a small audience like flyers, they are verifiable only insofar as they have been incorporated into some kind of public archive or library which has an index easily accessible to the public.  For example, I can go to Stanford University's Web site and search for the locations of documents in particular boxes in the university archives.  Then I can go to the archive and file a request for that box so that I can see that document.  But if the flyers are only in the hands of various private individuals, it would be difficult for a Wikipedia editor (who is new to the particular subject) to find out which individuals still have a copy of a particular flyer on file.  --Coolcaesar 05:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does verifiability require that ''everyone'' may easily verify? 

message: I don't know where to put this notice, but I feel, I need to alert the community. Currently, the voting process on the Russian translation of the Verifiability is underway in the Russian part of Wikipedia. Despite all the arguments for the necessity of this most basic policy, the votes so far are distributed 2:1 (pro:con). I urge all active participants of Russian wiki who are also acive here to take a look at what happens at the voting page and to make their choice. Alexei Kouprianov 20:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting us know, Alexei. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh ! I've always wondered about Russian thinking. Terryeo 14:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian wikipedia community fights for Verifiability and loses 

message: Recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber there was an interesting exchange. (The article itself was ultimately deleted, which is OK with me; that's not why I am bringing the issue here.) There is an exchange here between Geoffrey Spear and GBYork in which the latter seems to insist that it is necessary to cite explicitly for the existence of a book: that is, as far as I can understand, that the article should explicitly indicate a library that holds a copy. This seems a bit bizarre to me. I routinely use books as sources; I cite author, title, publishing company, date, and (if possible) ISBN. That is normal citation for a book. I would not consider it a reasonable expectation that I should then need to add another level of citation for the existence of the book. - Jmabel | Talk 03:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably this falls under WP:Reliable sources. From what I can tell from the discussion, the reliability of the source was in question, as being from a vanity press. It isn't necessary to recursively cite sources to verify the source of every source. That would be an infinite loop! dryguy 03:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The ISBN number in these cases should be requested to ascertain the existence of that book (unless the book was published pre 1970). If the editor adding the cite from that book has the book in his hands, the ISBN number is there in the title page and in the back cover. If he does not have the book, why he is citing from that book in the first place? If the editor is citing from a another cite, he needs to say so in the reference ("as cited in XXXXX"). Citing the ISBN number is great, because the wiki software will automaticaly wikilink it to the ISBN search page where you can use the tools provided to find the book in a public library, amazon.com or other on-line retailers. WP:V at its best. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And for books without ISBN, here's a trick I once used for an ISBN-less book (see bolded part):Toffanin, Giuseppe. Machiavelli e il "Tacitismo". La "politica storica" al tempo della Controriforma. (Padua, Draghi, 1921; re-issued Naples, Guida, 1972) The book has no ISBN, but a query for its presence in libraries worldwide can be triggered by  clicking this "Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog" link(from Tacitean studies#References) --Francis Schonken 11:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be OK, as we take edits in good faith. But you need to provide the ISBN or other methods so that others can verify that the cite is indeed correct. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Author and title (and date if editions have varied) should be sufficient, unless they are (very rarely) ambiguous. Septentrionalis 16:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing that a book exists? 

message: I guess the reason I'm against this is that ultimately, it's all subjective, and trying to cover such subjectivity is very hard.  The nuts and bolts of the issue should always be that an editor is within their rights to remove any edit they feel contentious.  Such removals shouldn't be seen as deletions, and should be seen as good faith actions.  Yes, there are ways and means to go about requesting a source, but at the end of the day we're here to build an encyclopedia, and I don't think we should get too hung up on describing processes in the hope of discouraging subjective decisions.  The argument isn't about whether someone is right to remove information, it's about whether that information is verifiable.  Asking for people to search google shouldn't be a requirement, because, given the amount of mirrors Wikipedia now has, it's going to be hard for newcomers to work out what counts as easily verifiable, and it's going to allow a degree of wiki-lawyering.  Let's not bite newcomers and let's keep it simple. The guidance reads fine to me as is, and doesn't advocate deletion.  Nothing on Wikipedia is ever permanently deleted.  What it advocates is that people be aware that the information they add is open to challenge, and the ultimate challenge is the removal of that information. Hiding Talk 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's all subjective

message: I've reverted because, contrary to his statement that it seems this is what everyone's understanding of the policy is, it isn't mine, and I suspect it isn't the understanding of many other editors. -- Donald Albury 00:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not my impression of the above discussion under Burden of Evidence. dryguy 00:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't edit war over it. I do not see an explicit agreement to change the wording of the policy. Today's paricipants in this discussion are not sufficient in numbers to form a consensus to change something so fundamental and longstanding as this policy. -- Donald Albury 00:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing all uncited text is not fundamental to the policy; it is fundamentally wrong. The change was a relaxation of one word that corrects that wrong and brings it in line with common practice. It is not a change in the principle or the policy as it is understood by most all editors on Wikipedia. If you don't actually disagree with it and so aren't going to explain why the old version was better, it might as well be kept until someone actually objects to the change. The old version does more harm. —Centrx→talk • 00:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How does this policy not permit any uncited material to be summarily deleted by any editor? Your counter-argument for that was a description of your own practice when dealing with uncited material, a practice that consisted of challenging uncited claims except when they were outrageous, unlikely, etc. —Centrx→talk • 00:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree if someone removes a good faith edit made to this page, they should paste onto this talk page and refute it.  Then other people can weigh in and we can see where opinion stands on restoring it or not.  To just remove it and state you do not agree with the edit summary is not acceptable.  This is not the first time this type of problem has occured here, and it needs to stop.  The wording of this policy is open to improvement.  If anyone contests that an edit is an improvement they must be willing to debate what the issue with the particular edit is.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Centrx, any unsourced edit may be removed, not just challenged; obviously any edit can be challenged, so there's not much point in saying so. However, just because any edit may be removed doesn't mean we're encouraging it. As with all the policies, we rely on users exercising common sense. Anyone who went around removing material willy nilly would be blocked for vandalism or disruption. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centrx's edit 

message: "Articles dealing with urban myths, black projects, open secrets and otherwise obscure topics are not exempt from verifiablity requirements. In general, articles of this nature should not exist here unless they are well known, culturally signifigant, or can meet the criteria for notability (examples of which include the Jersey Devil, the Aurora aircraft, and the Israeli nuclear weapons program). Articles that deal with topics of this nature general have few, if any, reliable sources, leaving them open to claims of original research or speculation, niether of which are permitted on wikipedia."
This I added because the black project template points to this page as one of the standards that must be met for an article to stay here. For this reason I am somewhat concerned that this has been removed from the article, but I am not going to force it back. Instead, I merely wish to advise those who freqent this page that they may or may not find that something to this effect must stated out in the front for those who do not find any explicit references to the above three conditions. I will leave you alone now. ;-) TomStar81 02:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I have no objection to this addition in principle, I'm not sure what it's intended to achieve.  The page already clearly states that all articles, regardless of subject, must conform to the policy.  As to notability of such articles, I'd suggest a guideline should be created and added to the list at Wikipedia:Notability. It is certainly an area where caution is required to establish the importance of any information. JulesH 07:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You might do better to add more in-depth reminders about wiki policy in the appropriate articles' talk pages as well as at the top of the articles themselves, commented out so that only editors can see it.WolfKeeper 14:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A talk page template of a nature similar to the one used for living-person bios might be a good idea, just to remind editors of the requirements of verifiability. JulesH 19:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concern

message: Where is it? What is the reason why "removed" is better? —Centrx→talk • 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Centrx, any unsourced edit may be removed, not just challenged; obviously any edit can be challenged, so there's not much point in saying so. However, just because any edit may be removed doesn't mean we're encouraging it. As with all the policies, we rely on users exercising common sense. Anyone who went around removing material willy nilly would be blocked for vandalism or disruption. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: the "removed" phrasing is important... if a user objects when you remove their unsourced additions, you can point them here to make them understand.  If it were changed to "challenged" they would likely expect you to put a  tag on there or something instead, which isn't always the best thing to do. JulesH 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. If something is obviously biased, false, propagandistic, absurd, etc., then leaving it in the article does a disservice to the reader and damages Wikipedia. Less controversial stuff can be "challenged", but more controversial stuff can be "removed". Jayjg (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My suggestion is very similar to your second possible revision.  Did we edit conflict?  Any way I can definately agree with "challenged or removed by any editor" --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to "Challenged"? 

message: Centrx, I think this covers what you want to say. Not sure there's a need to say more than this. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't follow. The whole page is policy. There is no policy section. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a "The policy" section which purports to be either a summary of the policy or the first principles of the policy. —Centrx→talk • 04:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and the summary is that edits must sourced or they may be removed. There is then more detail about that below. You're trying to flesh out the summary so that it's no longer a summary. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A summary that does not admit the good practice, in many cases, of challenging an edit rather than immediately removing it, is not a sufficient summary. The section remains a summary with this addition, and would remain a summary even if a full sentence were added to each enumerated item; the summary would then be less concise and less useful for cursory inspection, but in this case one major word and one conjunction has a negligible cost in that respect, for the benefit of a major improvement in accuracy. —Centrx→talk • 05:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't judge what's bogus; we judge only whether something is well sourced or not. What is it about the paragraph I cited above that you feel is insufficient? Also, can you give some examples of editors removing "eminently correct, but uncited material," without requesting a source? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So any uncited information should be summarily removed, regardless of its value? Any editor who is removing or not removing uncited information is making a judgement as to whether it is bogus, and it is reasonable to make that judgement. If someone else thinks it is bogus, they will remove it instead, but they still think, as reasonable editors, that it is bogus. Discussion and discovery of related sources may clarify whether it is or not, but there is no reason for this policy to go beyond that and authorize anyone to remove any and all statements that are verifiable but happen not to be sourced. Here is an example of uncited text that was removed, you yourself restored it despite the source not supporting the vague, general statement . Here's another, . —Centrx→talk • 05:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with having the summary read 'challenged and removed' is that it implies that unsourced material may be removed only after it has been challenged. That is unacceptable. Vandalism and unsourced negative material about living persons need to be immediately removed. If someone adds a sentence to The Holocaust to the effect that less than 1 million Jews died in it, I don't ask for a citation and wait around to see if one is forthcoming, I revert it. I don't delete unsourced material without first asking for a sources without good reason, but there are plenty of good reasons for doing so. If material that can be verified from reliable published sources is deleted, it can be easily added back in. If unverifiable material is left in because it has to be challenged before it can be removed, falsehoods may be widely propagated through mirror sites in the meantime. -- Donald Albury 10:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough, but note that the phrasing currently being proposed is "challenged or removed", not "challenged and removed". JulesH 11:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops. Missed this discussion before making my last revert. My apologies. Carry on. dryguy 13:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still reasonable, the only evident objection to this text is aesthetic. —Centrx→talk • 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Challenge/remove

message: What is the objection to Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. ?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. dryguy 03:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Dryguy's change. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: While I don't think the change is necessary, I don't object to making it either. JulesH 11:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the objection? 

message: I would like a quick definition of consensus as it applies to WP:V, and the methods by which it is achieved. And I would like to see this information added permanently to the top of this discussion page, as I believe it would help reduce the amount of back-and-forth that goes on; people are used to the kind of consensus that is achieved over time, in the article namespace, whereas here in Policyland, there is a different or higher standard for consensus. So what is the standard, exactly, and why is it not documented? I recently saw a reversion with the edit summary "rv there was an objection; see talk", which implies that consensus is not achieved without unaninimity. Is the standard unaninimity among people who weigh in on it on Talk? How many people must participate? Are all participants equal? I have many other questions that I raised in a post above (search for my username: mjb). Thanks. —mjb 14:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is misleading to think of consensus as something that is "to be achieved."  It is better to think of it as something that needs to be demonstrated.  Let me just say the rest of my comments refer to page like this which are heavily watched by many people.  The best to demonstrate consensus is by making a change and having no one object, this is part of being bold.  However if there are known objections to something, it should be hashed out on the talk page.  Many things just need to be better explained or refined until the objections are either retracted or weakened to the point people will not remove the change.  I believe everyone willing to participate in the dialog is equal here.  However certainly everyone brings a different experience to the table and that should be respected.  My main complaint is when people revert a change without moving it to the talk page and stating why the object to the change.  These kind of actions prevent people from being able to refine their ideas into something that can demonstrate consensus.  An exception to this is when someone makes several significant changes at once, they should be reverted and asked to hash out their ideas on the talk page first.  Also this page has alot of people that just tend to straight revert anything they don't agree 100%.  In other pages this situation might be handled by editing the change without completely removing it.  This sort of action would not need and explanation on the talk page as a revert does IMHO.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that several days have passed and no one has objected to your comments would seem to indicate that consensus has been achieved and everyone supports you, by the standards of some. But I am pretty certain that's not the case; it has been stated here repeatedly that neither WP:V, nor any other publication in the policy namespace, is the place to make bold edits and see if consensus is demonstrated over time; that's only for the regular, non-BLP article namespace. Here, there is obviously a much different standard being applied, and any change is supposed to be discussed and consensus reached/demonstrated in advance of making an edit. Apparently, though, no one is motivated to pin down exactly what such consensus entails, and that's a source of frustration for everyone involved. I consider it an intolerable situation, but apparently I'm in the minority. I also observe that if it can be said that despite my opposition there is apparent consensus that 'consensus' need not be better defined, then it must be possible to have consensus without unanimity. I ask again: how exactly is consensus attained/demonstrated/measured on WP:V? mjb 01:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to imply that you should edit a policy such as this with a brand new idea no one as ever heard of and see what happens.  What I mean is when you believe an idea has consensus editing the policy and having no one change is one way too demonstrate it.  I suppose your real question is how could anyone come to believe an idea has consensus if it isn't written in the policy?  The answer too that is by being aware of existing practice, by being aware to  various discussions happening on talk pages.  Policy should always follow existing practice.  When existing practice is not uniform that is when you need to rely more heavily on the talk pages.  When you think you know where consensus stands then edit the policy.  If there are obejections to the edit then they need to be hashed out until you can demonstrate consensus by having an edit "stick."  I don't know that it possible to ever change policies like this without being bold to a small degree.  Many people who will oppose an edit do not always speak up on the talk pages until someone actually makes a change. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW I don'u think the fact that no one has spoken againt my first statement demonstrates consensus, because it is on a talk page.  Either the small number of people who even read my answer, think it is close enough to their owns ideas to stay silent, are unsure of the answer and do not wish to go record before firming their own opinion, or else they just don't think this conversation is worth their time.  Things which get no response on a talk page may suddenly find much opposition if they edited into policy. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 04:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Either the small number of people who even read my answer, think it is close enough to their owns ideas to stay silent, are unsure of the answer and do not wish to go record before firming their own opinion, or else they just don't think this conversation is worth their time."—Such speculation is, as near as I can tell, the cornerstone of the WP:V consensus criteria. Each person who has contributed to the discussion believes that the lurkers with an interest in the discussion support their point of view. The last poster thinks they've given voice to a silent majority, while in the eyes of the person they're responding to, the last poster seems to be the only person holds a contrary point of view. As a lurker myself, I quite often say "my view is represented in the discussion, and that last objection to it wasn't worth my time, surely any sensible person agrees" but my silence is usually ineffective; people believe what they want to believe. —mjb 14:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand me.  I meant people might think I am so far off base refuting me isn't worth their time as they may believe any sensible person would ignore such outlandish ideas.  In a nutshell a lack of interest in a talk page dialog is not a show of consensus.  My ideas are my own.  I think they have merit and I try to act according to them.  However I am well aware that other people may disagree with me.  I can't force people to state their objections although I seem to spend a lot of time trying to cajole people into doing so.  Silence after an edit to a well-watched policy page however is a demonstration of consensus.  The only time I think people not participating in the dialog support my idea is when I observe them acting according to my idea elsewhere.  You completely misrepresent my posistion above, I hope this clarifies it for you.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: From what I've seen, most newcomers who attempt an edit are not out to radically change anything. Rather, they're reading the policy and not coming to exactly the same understanding of it as is held by its principal guardians, who find it hard to believe that a cringe-worthy heading like "self-published sources in articles about themselves", for example, could be considered awkwardly phrased or difficult to understand the nuances of. The reader, though, doesn't always find its meaning to be crystal-clear, so they attempt to divine the intent and publish a clarification accordingly. As far as I can tell, such changes are quickly reverted for 'no consensus'; there's no denying that bold edits are heavily discouraged around here, but only after the fact. Good faith is rarely assumed, and humility (of the "maybe if people keep trying to change it, it's not as cut-and-dry as we thought" variety) is almost nonexistent.—mjb 14:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would figure any newcomer would read the big box which says When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.  I would further think that any newcomer would figure that maybe they should, as a newcomer, discuss any changes, or understand why their changes are reverted and they are instead invited here t discuss instead. Hiding Talk 21:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Document a definition of consensus for WP:V 

message: I invite interested parties to take a look at this page.  One editor has added a huge number of footnotes (in one case, a single sentence has five individual footnotes).  Unfortunately many of the footnotes are not from reliable scholarly sources; many are from anonymous undated webpages which may even have gotten their information from this very Wikipedia article. In my opinion this is a misuse of the Verifiability policy.  One editor has stated his intention of removing every single phrase which is not individually footnoted.  If this caught on, then Wikipedia would be about 1% of the size it is now.  I invite others to comment on Talk:Marcel_Lefebvre. Noel S McFerran 01:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Marcel Lefebvre]] 

message: Would it be appropriate for a biographical article that contains nothing more than DOB, names of spouse/children, and education and key positions, with dates to not contain a single reference?
This information is obviously taken from somewhere, and the truthfulness of the facts could be easily verified by a simple web search.  But the information is also not controversial.  Does an article that contains just this basic information need a reference? Patiwat 18:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it needs a reference, as per WP:V... Add the  tag at the top of the page and hopefully someone will add such a reference. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion.  I've used , but keep on getting reverted, with claims that the tag is unneccesary for easily verified facts and uncontroversial information.  I also keep getting told that the tag is ugly and unduly damages Wikipedia's credibility. Patiwat 19:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why not look it up and add the reference, if it is as simple as a quick web search? Or tell me which article, and maybe I will. dryguy 19:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two remarks.  First, if that is all there is to say on the person, does the subject pass WP:BIO?  Second, if you cannot readily confirm the information, it may not be accurate.  In that case an AFD will either spur someone to find appropriate references, or expose the article as inappropriate for Wikipedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What is the name of the article in question? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A whole bunch of articles in the Thai Wikipedia.  There is currently a debate there about when an article needs a reference, and when an article deserves the  tag.  Most, but not all  of the posts have been in Thai. Patiwat 21:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference neccesary for short articles without controversial information? 

message: The factors which a piece of information must satisfy to be used in Wikipedia are:
* Published
* Reliable Source (such publication must be by a reliable source)
* Verifiable (the information it self must be verifiable as as having been published by the reliable source)
*: But the source of publication need not be verified, is this correct?  That is, an out of print book could be cited if the information being included in Wikipedia were from the book, but republished more modernly? Thence the information could be verified, but not verified to the original publication.  Though the more recent publication quotes and cites the earlier, out of print publication ?  Then we can cite to the original, out of print publication ?Terryeo 23:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiability simply means that the document must be capable of being verified. Ease of verifiability isn't a criterion in WP:V, and quite rightly so. Editors may well need to quote rare works in specialist libraries (see e.g. Crushing by elephant, which quotes a number of rare 19th century British books). Such works are clearly verifiable, but you might have to travel a long way to be able to do that, or else engage someone else to do so on your behalf. -- ChrisO 23:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, in the Crushing by elephant article, citation  11, Robert Knox, London, 1681.  The original publisher of that book is not cited, is that right? The author, Robert Knox, is cited and the city of publication, London, and the year of publication, but the out of print book's original publisher is not cited ?  So then, the information within an out of print book can be referenced in that manner even though the original publisher of the book can not be provided ? Then, as much information as possible about the original publication is provided ? Terryeo 00:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the British Library catalogue, the 1681 book was published by "R. Chiswell". That's probably the name of the owner of the shop in which it was printed, no doubt at Knox's expense. R. Chiswell wouldn't have been a "publisher" - the modern system of publishers didn't exist back then. The publisher information actually isn't that important. It's nice to have, but the author's name, book title and year of information are the only bits of data that are really essential. -- ChrisO 00:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TerryO's link is to a site which contains a full text of the book, and (aince it's Project Gutenberg) is fairly reliable. Furthermore, it was reprinted in 1911, and the reprint is in a couple dozen major libraries. Interlibrary loans are cheap.  Septentrionalis 03:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asking: factors to include information 

message: What is the policy on the verifiability of archived news sources that are pay for only?  I've found that Google news is capable of searching such archives , but you have to pay to access the articles.  I'm willing to do this (I see it as a boon for researching tons of articles, too), but somebody would have to pay to verify the sourcing.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a potentially similar situation - I have free home access to Britannica, Times Digital Archive etc. via my local library, and free Lexis-Nexis access via a couple of academic libraries of which I'm a member. These are all pay-per-use resources, though I'm lucky in that I don't have to pay a penny. However, as I said in the discussion above, "Verifiability simply means that the document must be capable of being verified. Ease of verifiability isn't a criterion in WP:V, and quite rightly so." If you think about it, books are "pay for" only as well, so it's not an issue that's limited to archived news sources alone. -- ChrisO 02:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think pay-site should be discussed in this policy.  Nevertheless, as a jmatter of helping the reader,  linking free sources, like the Christian Science Monitor, is preferable to linking the Wall Street Journal when both contain the necessary information. Also, as I comment above, books can be gotten for free with time and some inconvenience; there are websites, like much of the New Republic which are literally unavailable in print or without payment (and to which few libraries subscribe). Septentrionalis 03:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer to use the most reliable/authoritative source you have access to, rather than the most accessible.  You may have to pay for Google News to find the source with their search feature.  But once you have cited it others can likely verify it at a library.   Libraries keep archives of papers like the Walll Street Journal as well as books.  I don't believe that the preference should be for convenience.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 11:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, especially if there's no other source for the information --plange 15:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason not to use both sources, but in general I agree.  Much of the work I've done on PublishAmerica is sourced from newspaper & magazine articles that are in pay-for-access archives now. JulesH 19:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. As per Brigitte's "the most reliable/authoritative source you have access to, rather than the most accessible". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, as I've pointed out many times, a lot of people are unaware that they can get free access to many databases from home through their public library.  Most public libraries in English-speaking North America subscribe to Thomson Gale's Infotrac OneFile and the ProQuest Historical Newspapers New York Times archive, as well as EBSCO.  Many of the articles available through the new Google News Search feature for news archives have been available on databases directly accessible through library OPACs for about a decade.  In my experience, ProQuest and LexisNexis are the most comprehensive (which is why few libraries can afford to subscribe to all of their content). --Coolcaesar 01:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  paid resources? 

message: there is a tag asking for varaiiability on the page about overclocking, i would like to say that YES one can catch their (or their highschool's) computer onfire(atleast by the where there is smoke there is fire... copious amounts of smoke) by overclocking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.224.118 (talk • contribs) 
: Hmmm.  I'm familar with hardware.  There are implementations which allow a software setting of the clock speed of a processor.  But this isn't commonly accessible and especially isn't commonly accessible in a public use (or school) computer.  It would be poor systems administrator who allowed a user to overclock a public computer.  Then, if a computer was set to overclock there are other tempreture sensing functions which come into play.  Generally, an integrated circuit will cease to function when it gets too hot and can not function until it catches something on fire.  In short, I don't believe it. heh. Terryeo 19:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sure it happens from time to time, just as computers catching fire without overclocking does occasionally.  But why its being discussed here is beyond me...! :) JulesH 07:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VERIFIED 

message: I have a link to an interview on a site for a Byron Allen interview of Ronnie Lott that I had first seen on late night television. People keep deleting it. In the interview Ronnie Lott brags about himself and Marcus Allen cheating with the help of Byron Allen. Now the site still exists but the video seems to be disabled. Does the fact go away? --Gbleem 20:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Insert a reference of the form "title of program, production company, channel broadcast on, broadcast on date of broadcast".  Broadcasting is publication, and therefore the source is acceptable according to the standards here. JulesH 07:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with using programs is that, unless they are available on videotape/disk/web, they are impractical for others to verify, and if the source cannot be verified with reasonable effort, it does not meet the purpose of this policy. If the program or transcripts are available (as many programs are), then an indication of how to obtain one would be helpful.  Robert A.West (Talk) 16:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does this policy say the source must be verified with reasonable effort? --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My suspicion is that if the reader attempting to verify the information were to contact the production company, they would be able to confirm whether or not the summary given was accurate or not, so all the information necessary to verify is included in such a citation. JulesH 18:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byron Allen, Marcus Allen, Ronnie Lott and College Cheating 

message: It seems to me that Pjacobi is attempting to make a point in this policy (Verifiability) that belongs, and largely is made at NPOV.  I think there is no dispute that an article should, to the best of our collective ability and the demands of presentation, fairly summarize the field.  Discussion about how best to phrase that idea belongs, IMO, at NPOV, not here, and if we mention it in this policy, it should be in a section on how the three policies interact, which could be common to all three policies.
*Verifiability is about the need to have sources, the need for those sources to be reliable, and the ideal that any reader with access to a decent research library should be able to find the sources if they wish to attempt to verify that everything in the article either comes from a reliable source, or is a reasonable inference from reliable sources.
*No original research is about avoiding inferences that are more than trivial, that would constitute a new way of looking at the subject.
*NPOV is about including the whole of the field, covering all opinions and viewpoints to the extent practical while maintaining the readers' interest.
Every editor is equally entitled to contribute to the efforts to maintain these standards.  Since an editor's real-world qualifications are beyond Wikipedia's ability to determine, we should consider only results: an editor is the sum of his or her contributions, no more, no less.  Sometimes it is good to have non-specialists trying to verify facts in a specialized article -- they sometimes spot unspoken assumptions that those more knowledgable make without realizing it.  If an editor makes edits that are unhelpful, that is a matter for the community to solve on a case-by-case basis, whether the disruption is deliberate or ignorant.  
My humble opinion, for what its worth. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your assessment. These three policies work together, each one covering a specific aspect. Following the principles embodied in these policies are not a guarantee for an excellent article, as editor's judgement and collaborative efforts of editors made in good faith are surely needed for an article to be informative, neutral and encyclopedic . ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 08:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with the above.  Any editor whose edits are unhelpful should simply be educated about the issue, this is the bueaty of collaboration. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is helpful, esp. the distinction that policy is what needs to happen, and guidelines are how that is achieved. To this end, please weigh in on the current debate related to Pjacobi's discussion at WP:CITE - making an exception for inline citations for common knowledge facts. --plange 16:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't writing in a neutral voice include balance and comprehensively covering all relevant points of view (what some have called "horizontal" comprehensiveness)?  I quote from WP:NPOV#Undue weight, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."  Yes, achieving this is an emergent process, but from a realistic viewpoint, so are Verifiability, brilliant prose and everything else we try to achieve: many good articles started out as poorly-written uncited stubs and improved from there.  Robert A.West (Talk) 16:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)I think NPOV is both actually.  It is about avoiding bias by writing "in a neutral voice".  As well as avioding bias by ommission.  We cannot claim to have a neutral point of view when the article is not comphrensive. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe BirgitteSP has stated the situation, that NPOV has 2 elements. One being "write in a neutral voice" and Two being "present the several widely published points of view". Terryeo 14:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The three policies