On 3/2/06, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This entirely misses the point of the policy. We
don't publish
material that is "factually correct." We publish material that other
reputable publications have published. If we leave it to individual
editors to decide what is "factually correct," then we're into
original-research territory, subjective views, people's prejudices,
people's ignorance. Where our judgment comes in is in deciding which
sources are the most trustworthy in the given area i.e. the most
likely to be "factually correct." But we're always one step removed
from that idea ourselves. The criterion for entry into Wikipedia is
verifiability, not truth.
I understand that this is the goal, but I think you're straying into
idealistic territory here if we make that the *policy*.
On a practical level, how would you approach a long, stable article
without a single cited source? Would you say, "this is probably
totally subjective"? Would you be so easily fooled by the presence of
sources, if you didn't check that they were reliable, were not cited
out of context, were not selectively chosen, etc?
Regarding the relationship between NOR and V, they are
inextricably
linked, in that the only way to show you're not doing OR is to cite a
source.
Hmm, the only way to *show* I'm not doing OR. But why would I need to
show that? Because someone asked me to. Why would they ask me? Because
they were contesting the validity of my contribution...
I think I'm going around in circles here...I need to have a proper
look at the policy and clarify my thoughts.
Steve