[WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

Sat Mar 26 18:18:49 UTC 2005

steven l. rubenstein wrote:

> Tom Haws wrote,
>
>> steven l. rubenstein wrote:
>>
>> > Some people have suggested that if someone keeps putting unsourced
>> > material on the page, the solution is to delete it.  Well, this is the
>> > first solution to any problem at Wikipedia.
>>
>> Heh-heh.  It is easy to see how this problem got started.  Deleting
>> unsourced material is an excellent excuse for POV police, warriors, and
>> their ilk.  But it doesn't go over too well in polite society.
>
> Are you being disingenuous, or have you just not been following this 
> thread?  I thought it was abundantly clear that the person in question 
> had been asked for a source several times.  The question is, what to 
> do then?  Ray Saintonge replied, delete.  And that is where my e-mail 
> picks up. To then suggest I am a POV cop in this matter is 
> disingenuous and dangerous.
>
> What POV do you think I am pushing, Tom?
>
> It should be clear that this is NOT a matter of pushing a POV.  I have 
> no objection to including a marxist definition in the article.  But it 
> must be accurate.  Otherwise, what kind of encyclopedia is this?
>
> Okay Tom, what do you think we should do, if someone refuses over the 
> course of several weeks to provide a source for a claim that some 
> editors say is inaccurate or simply false?
>
> I am getting tired of this discussion that seems to go nowhere, but I 
> think it is important.  If Tom Haws is going to label as a POV warrior 
> anyone who insists that our policies, such as Verifiability and Cite 
> sources, must be enforced, then how on earth are we going to write a 
> good encyclopedia?  Or do you have a different goal, Tom?

I don't expect Steven to take the flak for what I said.  I'm glad to 
repeat that when a contributor refuses to give a reference for a 
statement it should be deleted.  I'm not questioning that user's good 
faith, only his understanding of how research.is done. 

Tom's statement about POV police only proves that he hasn't got a clue 
about the difference between polite and impolite society.  How polite is 
the society that reliesa on bullshit as a source for its intellectual 
capital.  I nevertheless do make allowance for the possibility that he 
may have been using "polite" in an ironic sense.

It's no secret that some people are absolutely schizophrenic when it 
comes to coping with academia.  I am not without criticism about 
academia, but I will at least give them credit for what they do right.  
One of the most important things that they do right is demand sources.  
Failing to give sources is reason enough for failing a freshman term paper.

If something is bounced because it lacks sources it may still be allowed 
back later ... when someone is willing to provide a source. 

When it comes to political terminology it is important to be clear about 
our terminology, especially when we are dealing with POV-charged terms 
like "capitalism". 

Ec