Christoph Seydl wrote:
>Contrary: If the principle of verifiability is not defined in basic
>principles, there is always discordance:
>
What makes you think that elaborating will eliminate the discord? There
will still be endless argument about what the rules mean.
>* There are people who say that it is just a recommendation to verify
>facts.
>
In *some* subject areas that is adequate. In other areas fact-checking
should be very strict.
>They don't source any fact because they think that footnotes are
>ugly. And why checking something if one knows a fact? They say that
>footnotes are counterproductive because they suggest an academic
>standard which Wikipedia cannot provide; every quote can be faked. They
>believe in the self-cleaning process of 100-eye-checks.
>
I'm not arguing against this. I even agree with you that every quote
can be faked; this only strenghthens the view that when quotes are given
a different person should track the quote to make sure that it is as
claimed. Academic standards are built over an extended period of time,
and none of them can ever reach perfection. Clearly we need more
references than none, but there is also the other extreme where people
are challenging fundamental concepts that betray their own lack of
familiarity with the topic. In an article on the basic concepts of a
science it should be enough to show a broad sampling of common textbooks
in the bibliography. The implication is that they all say basically the
same thing, and specific footnotes should only be needed when there is a
difference in the way that each treats the subject. In an article on
climate change a link to a Wikipedia article on the chemistry of
combustion should be enough to establish that burning carbon based fuels
produces carbon dioxide.
>* On the other side, there are is the encyclopedia fraction. They say
>that every material must be sourced. If there is no published source, it
>is not a matter of an encyclopedia. And if something is important, there
>is a source. An encyclopedia is about verifiability, not truth.
>
This is not disputed. There will continue to be disputes about what
constitutes a valid source, and just what people mean by "published"
>Being
>forced to check facts in reliable sourced before adding the material,
>improves the quality of Wikipedia because it puts the kibosh on smattering.
>
"Smattering"? The original contributor can only add sources, which he
hopefully does honestly. He cannot be the one checking them; that is
the responsibility of others. Put in terms of the scientific method,
the experiment must be repeatable to the point where any student can
verify the results. When I write about a familar subject I bring a lot
of received wisdom to the table. Some of it may have just seemed obvious
from the way it was explained by a university lecturer; certainly nobody
else that was sitting in the class that day challenged it.
The learner cannot succeed without accepting some responsibility for the
process. When references are so detailed that the reader can absolve
himself of any responsibility for the material then maybe there are too
many.
>* Between these two extremes, there are people who think that sourcing
>is important, if is about disputed issues.
>
True enough. There is a greater urgency when the matter is disputed,
and disputed issues are plentiful enough to keep many people very busy,
but that is not enough to excuse totally ignoring undisputed material.
>Actually, just stating "verifiability is a pillar" is not enough. It can
>mean everything and nothing.
>
That is precisely where a pillar draws its strength. Flexible
foundations survive earthquakes better than rigid pillars.
>In reality, not defining verifiability,
>supports the "sources-are-only-a-recommendation-I-do-not-like-anyway"
>attitude.
>
Not at all. Detailed definitions are a backdoor for imposing Points of
View about verifiability.
>Jimbo Wales says: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be
>a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative
>'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs
>a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be
>sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of
>negative information about living persons. I think a fair number of
>people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy
>writers. (This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude
>and frustration.)"
>(http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046433.html)
>
The parenthetical portion is especially important. Much of this is a
statement from the heart rather than from the head. Jimbo's
pronouncementscan have strange effects on discussions because they tend
to be extrapolative. Some of them need to be taken with a grain of salt.
There are obvious reasons for taking a hard line about the biographies
of living people. A liberal interpretation of "random speculative ...
pseudo information" as applying to "all information" would paralyse the
entire project. No contributor should be viewed as perfect, but some
latitude needs to be given to those who have long experience in the
subject they are writing about; there is little that is random about
writings.
>You see that there is a lot of discordance among Wikipedians. If there
>is no policy, there is always dispute how to deal with verifiability.
>The question is: Which information has to be sourced? I think that the
>verifiability issue should be outlined, if it is a pillar.
>
There is indeed a lot of discord about this, but no amount of policy is
going to change that. The first tool for applying a pillar should be
common sense. Without that no other tools will be effective. The level
of verifiability can vary with the subject matter. There should always
be room for the reader to accept his share of the responsibility.
Ec
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l