[WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

Sat Mar 26 08:04:30 UTC 2005

-------------- Original message -------------- 
> And this is the whole point of the "cite sources" and "verifiabilty" 
> policies that Silverback disparages. Of course it is possible that I am 
> wrong about the Marxist definition -- but if I am wrong, then whomever is 
> providing the "marxist" definition should be able to provide a source or 
> citation. 
> 
> For Silverback to disparage these policies, and insinuate that it was 
> self-righteous of me to bring this problem to the attention to the list, is 
> too absurd. His behavior mimics that of RJII's, and is the kind of 
> behavior that has no place here at Wikipedia. Our work must be 
> verifiable. If someone asks for a source, provide it. Like RJII, 
> Silverback not only scoffs at providing a source, he continues to insist 
> that the definition is right, that it is I who has to provide the source, 
> that I am self-righteous, that the policy is trivial ... 
> 
> At what point do we characterize this behavior as trollish? 
> 
> Steve 

I think reasonable summaries are not violations of  NOR, and insistance
on cites for something obvious is a bit unfriendly.  

However, if it is any consolation, I now understand your frustration 
on that page, I think, we would have had a compromise a long time ago, 
if not for the unique character of RJII.   He is a strangely intransigent moving
target.  I'd catagorize him as a POV warrior of the highest degree,
except I usually reserve that for someone who has a recognizable POV.
I assume we each think he's on the other one's side.  

I disagree that anything insightful content guidance can come out of the
case.   A scientific case would be more helpful, because there is
a more generally accepted concept of the truth being searched for
and what constitutes facts and the most authoritative evidence.  Therefore
there is the opportunity to elaborate NOR beyond the every word must
have been used by someone else straightjacket.    Pointing out omissions
or flaws that any peer reviewer or scientific literate would acknowledge,
should be allowed.   For example, this new study demonstrates this
new variable is important, therefor that older study which did not
account for that variable (by inspection, because no one else has said
it YET) is now called into question.  NOR should not ban simple things
like counting, summarizing, drawing conclusions from inspection of
an article, application of simple equations or principles to facts, etc.

            -- Silverback