Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
--- Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
In practice, yes, if:
1) The information looks likely to be correct; and
Problem is that's subjective. How does one determine
what
is or is not likely?
Subjectivity is not inherently a problem, and for a
2 more problems. Thats subjective and and its not
policy.
project like this
it's bound to happen at some point. In this case one
At some point, we all die, so why wait? Im not following
your logic.
determines whether
it's likely based on whether anyone actually challenges
it. If nobody
challenges a bit of information then either everyone
thinks it's likely
to be correct (that's good) or nobody has noticed it (not
so good, but
also makes the issue not terribly urgent). Or perhaps
Unless lots of people have noticed via external searching
but no one has changed it and simply accepted it because
its in an encyclopedia and they AGF. Have you heard of
this new fangled concept called a false dilemma? I just
heard about it. Something to do with logic.
nobody who's read
it feels qualified to judge it, but a citation probably
wouldn't help in
that sort of situation.
Or somebody not only felt qualified, but did judge, changed
it annonymously, assumed good faith, never bothered to
check back on it to challenge reversions, only to have it
changed back by the originator, a troll, vandal, an
innocent admin, etc. This false dilemma concept sure puts
things in perspective.
> 2) Even if
it isn't, it doesn't matter all that much
(not
potentially libelous, etc.); and
So, now we have the same subjectivity as 1) along with
a
test: If it causes legal problems, delete.
If nobody has a problem with it then there's no problem
with leaving it
in. Subjective but still quite useful.
If? And useful according to who? Anyone whos content
with fake information? Spam? Pure nonsense? Having a
page in a something that calls itself an encyclopedia say
so? How is it useful?
> 3) It
looks likely that a source can be procured in
the
future.
Back to subjectivity. How does one determine whether a
source is likely?
One just thinks it when one reads the information. eg.,
"The article
says Mr. Foo died in 1975. I don't have access to a
library to check
right now but he was pretty famous so there's probably
obituaries in the
newspapers if nothing else." That's all that's needed,
one doesn't have
to actually look it up.
Actually, one does "have to" look it up. Which brings us
back to the point of this dicussion. #1 policy NPOV
states:
"All [not some, not just those you decide are likely]
Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must [as
in "have to", this is not optional] be written from a
neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and
without bias all significant views that have been published
by a reliable source."
Also note the following in the NPOV policy:
"absolute and non-negotiable."
You may consider Foo famous, but 99.7% of the world may not
know who he is or where to find any information on him.
That makes it OR until one provides reliable sources that
show otherwise.
From the NPOV tutorial:
You must also ensure
that your assertions about
alternative uses are both significant and verifiable, using
appropriate attribution and citation.
Now, applying this new technology of logic instead of that
common sense thing, if something must have something, yet
doesnt, should it be allowed to remain? If so, how long?
If indefinite (infinite), then thats the same as saying
that articles do not require NPOV. Any article can remain
as long as one likes regardless of what NPOV states.
~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097