[WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
160 messages Options
1234 ... 8
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Philip Sandifer-2
Consider this another entry in that time-tested genre of "obviously  
futile suggestions to nuke things that nobody is ever going to nuke,  
but probably should anyway" posts. (The classic, of course, being  
Nuke AfD. Which we should still do.)

We should nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]. They are not working. They  
have never worked. It is not a feasible project to go and add sources  
to everything, and new contributors who are editing casually are  
never going to be willing to do the extra work of having sources. The  
result is a rule where we are always going to be playing catch-up.

Nor do the pages prevent incidents like Siegenthaler, which was a  
problem with exactly one cause, which is that nobody had ever  
actually looked at that page after it was created. No policy in the  
world will fix a page that nobody is editing.

Yes, we need to ensure that people do not add crap information. This  
can be covered easily with "Information that people doubt the  
validity of should be sourced." And we can then leave the community  
to deal with issues on a case by case basis with the direction that  
they should be careful to make sure that information is accurate. And  
we should shoot people who continue to add dubious information over  
the objections of other editors. Which is basically how we wrote an  
encyclopedia that has proven pretty trustworthy, and, more to the  
point, is how we actually operate now on the vast majority of our  
articles, since [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]] are not actually useful pages.

But to have a pair of policies that cannot be honestly implemented  
serves only one purpose: causing debates among editors that waste  
time and good faith.

Nuke them.

-Phil


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

geni
On 1/25/07, Phil Sandifer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Consider this another entry in that time-tested genre of "obviously
> futile suggestions to nuke things that nobody is ever going to nuke,
> but probably should anyway" posts. (The classic, of course, being
> Nuke AfD. Which we should still do.)
>
> We should nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]. They are not working.

Niether do most forms of goverment but people still tend to try and
keep some form of them arround

>They
> have never worked. It is not a feasible project to go and add sources
> to everything, and new contributors who are editing casually are
> never going to be willing to do the extra work of having sources. The
> result is a rule where we are always going to be playing catch-up.
>

That differes from our copyright policy how?

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

bbatsell
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
On Jan 24, 2007, at 8:39 PM, Phil Sandifer wrote:

> Consider this another entry in that time-tested genre of "obviously
> futile suggestions to nuke things that nobody is ever going to nuke,
> but probably should anyway" posts. (The classic, of course, being
> Nuke AfD. Which we should still do.)
>
> We should nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]. They are not working. They
> have never worked. It is not a feasible project to go and add sources
> to everything, and new contributors who are editing casually are
> never going to be willing to do the extra work of having sources. The
> result is a rule where we are always going to be playing catch-up.
>
> Nor do the pages prevent incidents like Siegenthaler, which was a
> problem with exactly one cause, which is that nobody had ever
> actually looked at that page after it was created. No policy in the
> world will fix a page that nobody is editing.
>
> Yes, we need to ensure that people do not add crap information. This
> can be covered easily with "Information that people doubt the
> validity of should be sourced." And we can then leave the community
> to deal with issues on a case by case basis with the direction that
> they should be careful to make sure that information is accurate. And
> we should shoot people who continue to add dubious information over
> the objections of other editors. Which is basically how we wrote an
> encyclopedia that has proven pretty trustworthy, and, more to the
> point, is how we actually operate now on the vast majority of our
> articles, since [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]] are not actually useful  
> pages.
>
> But to have a pair of policies that cannot be honestly implemented
> serves only one purpose: causing debates among editors that waste
> time and good faith.
>
> Nuke them.
>
> -Phil

Sorry to quote the whole thing, but there weren't really any sections  
I felt I could snip.

I'm not sure I understand what your reasoning behind this is.  You  
say that [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]] are "not actually useful pages"  
and "cannot be honestly implemented."  To your first statement, I  
think they're incredibly useful and I didn't see a shred of letters  
exhibiting why they are not in your e-mail.  As to your second  
statement, that's true of nearly all (if not all) of our policies.  
Those are *goals*.  Of course it's not feasible that every single  
sentence in every single article across every localized Wikipedia be  
sourced from reliable sources.  That's ridiculous.  But in order for  
an article to be a good one, it must be sourced from reliable  
sources, and that's what those policies state.

Encyclopedias are tertiary sources; if they're good, they provide an  
adequate summation, but hardly the whole picture.  Encyclopedias,  
when used correctly, are merely a "jump-off point" for new reading  
and learning.  If we alter our goals so that we do not strive for  
providing sources and references, then not only will we have failed  
in providing a credible encyclopedic article, we will have failed in  
providing an article that serves any sort of purpose for our readers.

I have no idea where the idea that all WP:CITE and WP:RS do is cause  
debates among editors, because I personally have seen nothing of the  
sort.  I'd really appreciate some background perhaps to better  
understand where you're coming from.

Just my $0.02,
[[User:bbatsell]]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Philip Sandifer-2
In reply to this post by geni


On Jan 24, 2007, at 9:50 PM, geni wrote:
>
> That differes from our copyright policy how?

Our copyright policy is mostly intuitive, and can be explained in a  
sentence in such a way that an average person can understand it. It's  
slightly trickier with images, but only slightly since we've been  
cracking down pretty hard on "fair use" of late. Copyvio is not  
nearly as widespread as lack of sourcing. Copyvio is not a newbie-
unfriendly concept.

-Phil

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Philip Sandifer-2
In reply to this post by bbatsell


On Jan 24, 2007, at 9:54 PM, bbatsell wrote:

>
> Sorry to quote the whole thing, but there weren't really any sections
> I felt I could snip.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what your reasoning behind this is.  You
> say that [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]] are "not actually useful pages"
> and "cannot be honestly implemented."  To your first statement, I
> think they're incredibly useful and I didn't see a shred of letters
> exhibiting why they are not in your e-mail.  As to your second
> statement, that's true of nearly all (if not all) of our policies.
> Those are *goals*.  Of course it's not feasible that every single
> sentence in every single article across every localized Wikipedia be
> sourced from reliable sources.  That's ridiculous.  But in order for
> an article to be a good one, it must be sourced from reliable
> sources, and that's what those policies state.
>

Our policies should not be goals - they should be policies. If we  
cannot meaningfully implement the policy across all of our pages then  
it's a bad policy. This isn't actually a problem for most of our  
policies. [[WP:NPOV]] is actually basically understandable by any  
reasonably intelligent person, can be kept in mind, doesn't really  
require extra work. As a result, most of our pages do make a passing  
effort on NPOV. That is not true for sourcing.
> Encyclopedias are tertiary sources; if they're good, they provide an
> adequate summation, but hardly the whole picture.  Encyclopedias,
> when used correctly, are merely a "jump-off point" for new reading
> and learning.  If we alter our goals so that we do not strive for
> providing sources and references, then not only will we have failed
> in providing a credible encyclopedic article, we will have failed in
> providing an article that serves any sort of purpose for our readers.
>

There's a difference between having sourcing policies and making it a  
goal that we have sources and references. A good encyclopedia article  
should point towards further reading, yes. That's not what  
[[WP:CITE]] or [[WP:RS]] say, though. This should be something akin  
to adding images to an article - something we like to do, but not  
something that we freak out over.

> I have no idea where the idea that all WP:CITE and WP:RS do is cause
> debates among editors, because I personally have seen nothing of the
> sort.  I'd really appreciate some background perhaps to better
> understand where you're coming from.

Pop onto AfD for a bit. Or to articles on popular culture. Or  
[[WP:FAC]]. Sourcing disputes are a more or less constant din - both  
with articles that are accurate being taken to task for not being  
well-sourced enough (This has become a pernicous flavor of  
deletionism in the past year or so) and with articles that are  
complete shit getting a pass because they have sources, even if the  
sources are bollocks.

-Phil
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Ken Arromdee
In reply to this post by bbatsell
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, bbatsell wrote:
> Those are *goals*.  Of course it's not feasible that every single  
> sentence in every single article across every localized Wikipedia be  
> sourced from reliable sources.  That's ridiculous.

Instead we have "every single sentence in a random subset of articles must
be sourced from reliable sources."  It sucks if a topic you're interested in
is in one of that random subset.

You also get subgroups of editors who absolutely refuse to accept some kinds
of source.  [[Wikipedia:Attribution]] has stalled because it's impossible to
tell some people that popular culture can't be sourced like science and
history.


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Omegatron-3
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
On 1/24/07, Phil Sandifer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We should nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]. They are not working.

I have seen [[WP:RS]] used a lot lately.  I have yet to see it
actually improve anything.  It's predominantly used to remove
information that the remover knows is true but personally dislikes.

> And
> we should shoot people who continue to add dubious information over
> the objections of other editors.

And then there are the overzealous ones who remove encyclopedic
information that they agree with and know to be true, simply because
it isn't sourced.

This is not how you improve quality.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Ilmari Karonen
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
Phil Sandifer wrote:

> Consider this another entry in that time-tested genre of "obviously  
> futile suggestions to nuke things that nobody is ever going to nuke,  
> but probably should anyway" posts. (The classic, of course, being  
> Nuke AfD. Which we should still do.)
>
> We should nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]. They are not working. They  
> have never worked. It is not a feasible project to go and add sources  
> to everything, and new contributors who are editing casually are  
> never going to be willing to do the extra work of having sources. The  
> result is a rule where we are always going to be playing catch-up.
>
> Nor do the pages prevent incidents like Siegenthaler, which was a  
> problem with exactly one cause, which is that nobody had ever  
> actually looked at that page after it was created. No policy in the  
> world will fix a page that nobody is editing.
>
> Yes, we need to ensure that people do not add crap information. This  
> can be covered easily with "Information that people doubt the  
> validity of should be sourced." And we can then leave the community  
> to deal with issues on a case by case basis with the direction that  
> they should be careful to make sure that information is accurate. And  
> we should shoot people who continue to add dubious information over  
> the objections of other editors. Which is basically how we wrote an  
> encyclopedia that has proven pretty trustworthy, and, more to the  
> point, is how we actually operate now on the vast majority of our  
> articles, since [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]] are not actually useful pages.
>
> But to have a pair of policies that cannot be honestly implemented  
> serves only one purpose: causing debates among editors that waste  
> time and good faith.
>
> Nuke them.

You know, having read this through, I do believe I agree.

Mind you, we do need _something_ to fill the policy vacuum that nuking
them would leave.  I think your "Information that people doubt the
validity of should be sourced" is a good starting point.  Add to it
"Information that could be libelous if false must be sourced", to cover
the BLP angle, and we're starting to get somewhere.

Of course, this current drive towards sourcing everything to the hilt
does have some positive aspects; we really _could_ use a lot more
sources in a lot of articles.  It's just the common sense "the color of
the sky on a clear day does not need sourcing" aspect that is missing.
Of course, reasonably interpreting the current policies also achieves
this goal quite well -- at least until a non-reasonable person shows up.

As for the Seigenthaler incident, I still believe it was and is
fundamentally a technical problem.  We simply shouldn't have live
articles that at least two or three established users haven't checked.
Some combination of patrolling and stable versions might do it, although
over time I've started to think more and more that it really needs some
other, truly out-of-the-box solution.

--
Ilmari Karonen

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

MacGyverMagic/Mgm
Ilmari is quite right. Nuking policy is not going to help if you have
nothing to replace it with. If you think it's badly worded, you should
attempt to reword it rather than nuking. It's rather like RS being used to
delete material an editor dislikes.

"Our policies should not be goals - they should be policies. If we
cannot meaningfully implement the policy across all of our pages then
it's a bad policy. This isn't actually a problem for most of our
policies. [[WP:NPOV]] is actually basically understandable by any
reasonably intelligent person, can be kept in mind, doesn't really
require extra work. As a result, most of our pages do make a passing
effort on NPOV. That is not true for sourcing."

I disagree with this. Reliable Sources is also basically understandable to a
reasonably intelligent person (if they bother to read it) and really doesn't
require all that much extra work. Typing in the URL or title for the book
you used to create something should only take about 1 or 2 minutes for a
short entry. If we enforce the policy better, we can actually catch up. How
are we supposed to know if something is accurate when there's nothing to
check against? I often tell people who question the accuracy of Wikipedia to
check the sources of an article like you should do with any source of info;
it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia if it turns out there's nothing there
to check. Should we really kill off a core policy to accomodate the lazy
editors among us?

No, Jimbo himself said we should focus more on quality than quantity at
Wikimania. The only way we are going to know something is of high quality is
when we can check it.

Mgm
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Steve Bennett-8
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
On 1/25/07, Phil Sandifer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Consider this another entry in that time-tested genre of "obviously
> futile suggestions to nuke things that nobody is ever going to nuke,
> but probably should anyway" posts. (The classic, of course, being
> Nuke AfD. Which we should still do.)

IMHO a tiny little "disputed" template would be more valuable than a
"citation needed" template. Theoretically *every* sentence needs a
citation. Most sentences are not disputed.

So I would rather see:

Seigenthaler shot JFK ^disputed^.

than:

Seigenthaler shot JFK ^citation needed^. Seigenthaler was born in
Houston ^citation needed^. Houston is in the USA ^citation needed^.

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by geni
geni wrote:

>On 1/25/07, Phil Sandifer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Consider this another entry in that time-tested genre of "obviously
>>futile suggestions to nuke things that nobody is ever going to nuke,
>>but probably should anyway" posts. (The classic, of course, being
>>Nuke AfD. Which we should still do.)
>>
>>We should nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]. They are not working.
>>    
>>
>Niether do most forms of goverment but people still tend to try and
>keep some form of them arround
>
:-D   Some would say that they continue to exist despite the peopl.

Ec


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

MacGyverMagic/Mgm
Also, if CITE and RS were to be nuked, there's not much point in keeping
WP:V; and if verifiability goes out of the window, I might as well give up,
because then Wikipedia will never be a accurate encyclopedia.

A while back I said that I think sources by an article's subject are
perfectly when they're used to back up content rather than the subject's
claim of notability, which is basically a comment on reliable sources too.

I think that shows the page needs to be altered.

Mgm


On 1/25/07, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> geni wrote:
>
> >On 1/25/07, Phil Sandifer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Consider this another entry in that time-tested genre of "obviously
> >>futile suggestions to nuke things that nobody is ever going to nuke,
> >>but probably should anyway" posts. (The classic, of course, being
> >>Nuke AfD. Which we should still do.)
> >>
> >>We should nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]. They are not working.
> >>
> >>
> >Niether do most forms of goverment but people still tend to try and
> >keep some form of them arround
> >
> :-D   Some would say that they continue to exist despite the peopl.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Bryan Derksen
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> Also, if CITE and RS were to be nuked, there's not much point in keeping
> WP:V; and if verifiability goes out of the window, I might as well give up,
> because then Wikipedia will never be a accurate encyclopedia.

Verifiability is a goal, citations and sources are means to achieving
that goal. Getting rid of CITE and RS does not necessarily imply getting
rid of the goal of verifiability, it merely means changing the means by
which it is achieved. It doesn't even mean getting rid of citations, I
don't think anyone's suggesting that they be forbidden.

> A while back I said that I think sources by an article's subject are
> perfectly when they're used to back up content rather than the subject's
> claim of notability, which is basically a comment on reliable sources too.
>
> I think that shows the page needs to be altered.

I suspect the "nuke CITE/RS" suggestion comes out of the same sort of
desire to loosen the current rules, just a little more extreme. I think
the "nuke the policy" position comes from the feeling that incremental
changes to existing policy will be too hard to pull off effectively and
so it's better to start from a clean slate.

I just spent two days trying to preserve a 1911 Britannica citation that
was removed because it wikilinked to [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] and
"Wikipedia is not a reliable source". When I finally managed (I think)
to convince the other editors that it wasn't actually meant to reference
our article about EB but rather the encyclopedia itself they removed it
anyway because it didn't specify which page in the encyclopedia was
being referenced. So I can definitely sympathize with this level of
frustration. :)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Matt R-2
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
--- Phil Sandifer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Pop onto AfD for a bit. Or to articles on popular culture. Or  
> [[WP:FAC]]. Sourcing disputes are a more or less constant din - both  
> with articles that are accurate being taken to task for not being  
> well-sourced enough (This has become a pernicous flavor of  
> deletionism in the past year or so) and with articles that are  
> complete shit getting a pass because they have sources, even if the  
> sources are bollocks.

Even for the best policies and guidelines, there'll always be some people who
try to abuse, wikilawyer, or generally twist them to their own ends. NPOV
disputes are more or less a constant din, too, but that's no reason to nuke
NPOV.  

In cryptography, there's this rhetoric about people who view crypto as "magic
pixie dust" that somehow makes a system secure if you just sprinkle some about.
The same holds for RS and CITE: they don't magically guarantee quality by
themselves, but they are great tools for doing so if not abused.

By all means, let's discuss where we need to improve things, but let's not
throw the proverbial baby out with the, well, you know.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com


               
___________________________________________________________
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk 

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Omegatron-3
On 1/25/07, Matt R <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The same holds for RS and CITE: they don't magically guarantee quality by
> themselves, but they are great tools for doing so if not abused.


But they are only used for abuse.  A simple sentence or two in WP:V and a
dose of consensus is sufficient.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Francis Tyers
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 08:09 -0500, Omegatron wrote:
> On 1/25/07, Matt R <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > The same holds for RS and CITE: they don't magically guarantee quality by
> > themselves, but they are great tools for doing so if not abused.
>
>
> But they are only used for abuse.  A simple sentence or two in WP:V and a
> dose of consensus is sufficient.

Only used for abuse?? How do you find that? I know that demanding decent
reliable sources for an /encyclopaedia/ is _controversial_ (sadly), but
its one of the things that (supposedly) makes us different from other
non-encyclopaedic volunteer run collections of information.

Fran

> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

MacGyverMagic/Mgm
In reply to this post by Omegatron-3
On 1/25/07, Omegatron <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 1/25/07, Matt R <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > The same holds for RS and CITE: they don't magically guarantee quality
> by
> > themselves, but they are great tools for doing so if not abused.
>
>
> But they are only used for abuse.  A simple sentence or two in WP:V and a
> dose of consensus is sufficient.


That's simply not true. I use them to show people how sources are important
to show information is accurate. Citing reliable sources is the only way to
show readers the content of an article is accurate and accuracy should be
our primary concern. If you know of other ways to verify content, I'm all
ears.

Mgm
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

MacGyverMagic/Mgm
In reply to this post by Francis Tyers
If people cited their sources in the first place, there wouldn't be any
abuse by people using that fact to get it deleted. Any abuse with these
policies can be prevented if people just made the effort. I think I'm going
to reread those pages and think about rewriting them.

Mgm


On 1/25/07, Francis Tyers <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 08:09 -0500, Omegatron wrote:
> > On 1/25/07, Matt R <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > The same holds for RS and CITE: they don't magically guarantee quality
> by
> > > themselves, but they are great tools for doing so if not abused.
> >
> >
> > But they are only used for abuse.  A simple sentence or two in WP:V and
> a
> > dose of consensus is sufficient.
>
> Only used for abuse?? How do you find that? I know that demanding decent
> reliable sources for an /encyclopaedia/ is _controversial_ (sadly), but
> its one of the things that (supposedly) makes us different from other
> non-encyclopaedic volunteer run collections of information.
>
> Fran
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Jeff Raymond
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> If people cited their sources in the first place, there wouldn't be any
> abuse by people using that fact to get it deleted. Any abuse with these
> policies can be prevented if people just made the effort. I think I'm going
> to reread those pages and think about rewriting them.
>

Please do.  While you're there, take a look at the talk page.  An easy
way to make WP:RS more useful would be to break down the sourcing by
subject as opposed to thinking that the same style of sources for
historical figures is needed for an internet meme.  Not surprisingly,
there's some vocal opposition to it, and the problem persists.

-Jeff
--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: [hidden email]
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
        Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
        - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Francis Tyers
In reply to this post by MacGyverMagic/Mgm
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 14:16 +0100, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> If people cited their sources in the first place, there wouldn't be any
> abuse by people using that fact to get it deleted. Any abuse with these
> policies can be prevented if people just made the effort. I think I'm going
> to reread those pages and think about rewriting them.
>
> Mgm

Agree. If there is a problem with things being deleted, it isn't a
problem with policy, but with the people writing them without specifying
a source.

Fran

>
> On 1/25/07, Francis Tyers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 08:09 -0500, Omegatron wrote:
> > > On 1/25/07, Matt R <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The same holds for RS and CITE: they don't magically guarantee quality
> > by
> > > > themselves, but they are great tools for doing so if not abused.
> > >
> > >
> > > But they are only used for abuse.  A simple sentence or two in WP:V and
> > a
> > > dose of consensus is sufficient.
> >
> > Only used for abuse?? How do you find that? I know that demanding decent
> > reliable sources for an /encyclopaedia/ is _controversial_ (sadly), but
> > its one of the things that (supposedly) makes us different from other
> > non-encyclopaedic volunteer run collections of information.
> >
> > Fran
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1234 ... 8