[WikiEN-l] Requiring sources

Sun Dec 25 22:03:13 UTC 2005

slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

> I agree with Jon. The problem with the proposed ruling
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Proposed_decision#Viriditas_and_Jayjg_reminded_regarding_NPOV
> is that it reprimands two editors because they asked for sources from
> an inveterate POV-pusher, which is exactly what they should have done.
> The policy is [[WP:V]], which says: (1) the burden of evidence lies
> with the editor who adds the material (in this case Xed and an anon);
> (2) one reason to ask for sources is if the edit is overly vague (it
> was) and if the editor has a history of making inaccurate claims (Xed
> does); and (3) any material not sourced may be removed by any editor.

Yep.

> Jay and Viriditas were asking for sources for some wild claims
> inserted by an anon and supported by Xed, including that the film
> Divine Intervention had not been nominated for an Academy Award
> because of a "vigorous campaign by Zionist activists to bar the movie
> ..." There was no evidence at all of any "Zionist" campaign. There's a
> good ABC News article about the controversy, which was basically a
> series of misunderstandings combined with a lack of insight into the
> Palestinian situation.
> http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79485&page=1
> One of the proposed findings of fact says that: "After Xed restored,
> Jayjg demanded sources despite the fact that a simple Google search
> gives 80,000 hits ..." But the Google search cited was for "'Divine
> Intervention' academy".
> http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=+%22Divine+Intervention%22+academy&btnG=Search

Yep.

> The proposed decision sends a message that editors have to be careful
> when asking for sources, which is the opposite of the one many of us
> are trying to get across.

And that's why this proposed decision is not only mind-bogglingly awful
both as a way to treat good editors, but even *more so* for its
follow-on effects. It sets an incredibly awful example and it amazes me
that there are people this isn't obvious to at a glance.

- d.