Mailing List Archive

As far as I know, verifiability is one of the most important things. No poll
should be allowed to abolish it. Ideally, all unverifiable garbage should be
removed from articles, but it should be kept in mind that sources -may be-
available.

On 9/15/06, Christoph Seydl <Christoph.Seydl@students.jku.at> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> there is a discussion on verifiability in the German-speaking Wikipedia.
> There are discussions how freely the German Wikipedia may design its
> policy on verifiability.
>
> * Are there any rules (minimum requirements) how verifiability should be
> designed in different Wikipedias?
> * Must there be a source for every included material (e.g. a basket is a
> cylindric vessel)?
> * Is it enough that only disputed material must be sourced?
> * May a poll abolish the requirement of verifiability?
>
> I hope, you can help
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Christoph Seydl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there is a discussion on verifiability in the German-speaking Wikipedia.
> There are discussions how freely the German Wikipedia may design its
> policy on verifiability.
>
> * Are there any rules (minimum requirements) how verifiability should be
> designed in different Wikipedias?
> * Must there be a source for every included material (e.g. a basket is a
> cylindric vessel)?
> * Is it enough that only disputed material must be sourced?
> * May a poll abolish the requirement of verifiability?
>
> I hope, you can help
Hoi,
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/basket shows you baskets.. two out of the
four shown are not cylindric.

When a point of view is "verified" by sources, it does not mean that the
point of view is correct. There are sources that say that the holocaust
is a lie. If this is true because of there being sources that say that
this is true, then there is a problem with the sources. When you then
say that a court of law proved that something is not true, than it is a
known fact that the world is flat.

Obviously you can have a poll that abolishes the requirement of
verifiability. But that is like saying that all the juries that send
people to the executioner were right in doing so.

Thanks,
GerardM
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Wikipedia establish that if a group of persons has an opinion and
another has got its own opinion, Wikipedia should take care of both
(with different importance following the diffusione of the opinion).

Not all could be verified, but all could have a reason, if this
reason has got some references it's a good point.

In any case the original points of view are not accepted.

Ilario


----Messaggio originale----
Da: gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Data: 16.09.06 0.11
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Minimum standards for verifiability

Christoph Seydl wrote:
>
> * Are there any rules (minimum requirements) how verifiability
should be
> designed in different Wikipedias?
> * Must there be a source for every included material (e.g. a
basket is a
> cylindric vessel)?
> * Is it enough that only disputed material must be sourced?
> * May a poll abolish the requirement of verifiability?


When a point of view is "verified" by sources, it does not mean
that the
point of view is correct. There are sources that say that the
holocaust
is a lie. If this is true because of there being sources that say
that
this is true, then there is a problem with the sources. When you
then
say that a court of law proved that something is not true, than it
is a
known fact that the world is flat.


Thanks,
GerardM




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> there is a discussion on verifiability in the German-speaking Wikipedia.
> There are discussions how freely the German Wikipedia may design its
> policy on verifiability.

2-3 weeks ago translation of English policy
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] was not approved in vote by community of
Russian Wikipedia.

It was necessary two third of voices "pro", but the policy has
received only 59%. (Has voted 90 wikipedians)

Reasons of opponents were:

* What is the reputable source? We never shall come to a consensus in this
* great delay in development of the project
* Abusings of deletists
* The rule is evident. We against bureaucracy and rules in text.
* There is no detailed description of practical application
* Our project still very young for such strict rule (Russian Wikipedia
has more then 100,000 articles)
* Disagreement with opposition: Verifiability - True
* It will be possible to remove the majority of existing articles
* Discrepancy of translation (the translation was as much as possible
close to the English text)
* Difference of mentality of participants of the English project and
Russian. We need proper "localised" text.
* Impossibility to write about simple "household" things, phrases,
internet culture objects etc
* Rules should describe an existing practice, instead of sharply to enter new

I hope, that we shall accept this text even as recommendations (guide,
not policy)

--
Amike kaj kunlabore,
Alexander Sigachov
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:.:Ajvol:.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Александр Сигачёв wrote:
> * Our project still very young for such strict rule (Russian Wikipedia
> has more then 100,000 articles)

This seems reasonable to me---en.wikipedia didn't enter a strong
verifiability/citation push until around 1 million articles. Before
that, the focus was on expanding content to a critical mass.

Of course, as a guideline something like this has been used all
along---incredible, surprising, or unlikely statements even in the early
days of Wikipedia had to be backed up with a source, or someone would
remove them.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 16/09/06, Delirium <delirium@hackish.org> wrote:
> Александр Сигачёв wrote:
> > * Our project still very young for such strict rule (Russian Wikipedia
> > has more then 100,000 articles)
>
> This seems reasonable to me---en.wikipedia didn't enter a strong
> verifiability/citation push until around 1 million articles. Before
> that, the focus was on expanding content to a critical mass.

en.wikipedia achieved a million articles in a very short period of
time. If a project takes 10 years to reach the 1 million mark, I don't
believe it should put off strong rules of verifiability until then.
Another problem with this 1 million suggestion is that some Wikipedias
have much more restrictive policies on inclusion (de.wikipedia being a
good example).

I suppose projects will naturally form strong verifiability rules in
response to growing media criticism. This should generally result in
Wikipedias establishing these rules at the same point of
popularity/media focus.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l