This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Wikipedia:Verifiability Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Wikipedia talk:Verifiability |
See WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages. |
Good essay. (1 == 2)Until 22:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The burdon of proof should also be on the deletionist, since they are the ones causing all this trouble.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.181.206 ( talk) 23:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
As the creation of false wikialities is probably the most accurate criticism of our consensus process, I hope this essay isn't advocating in it's favor. You should at least mention WP:YESPOV, and perhaps WP:SOAP. But for secondarily sourced (i.e. non-soapbox) material, the onus should be on editors who don't believe certain content is relevant to the subject of an article, as it's usually plain on its face, and even in such a case, there's always an article somewhere else where the content can be used, in my experience. I agree with unsigned above: it's usually the deletionists who fail to heed the WP:YESPOV guidelines who are the troublemakers. -- Kendrick7 talk 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This essay has been marked as a guideline - I won't immediately invoke it against itself by removing the guideline notice, but can someone point to a discussion where consensus has been achieved to mark it as such?-- Kotniski ( talk) 19:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, WP:BURDEN says "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed," and this essay seems to leave out the "lacking a reliable source" bit. So it does seem different. I worry that this will lead to editors wanting to remove nearly every sentence of an article, since the borderline proposed here is no longer "reliably sourced", but "has consensus". You'd be surprised how many people can be found to say something like... yeah, it's sourced by the New York Times, and the United Nations, and the European Union, but all those agencies are biased, so it should go, unless you convince a majority of editors on this article. It seems to be saying that consensus is more important than verifiability. -- GRuban ( talk) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Wikipedia:Verifiability Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Wikipedia talk:Verifiability |
See WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages. |
Good essay. (1 == 2)Until 22:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The burdon of proof should also be on the deletionist, since they are the ones causing all this trouble.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.181.206 ( talk) 23:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
As the creation of false wikialities is probably the most accurate criticism of our consensus process, I hope this essay isn't advocating in it's favor. You should at least mention WP:YESPOV, and perhaps WP:SOAP. But for secondarily sourced (i.e. non-soapbox) material, the onus should be on editors who don't believe certain content is relevant to the subject of an article, as it's usually plain on its face, and even in such a case, there's always an article somewhere else where the content can be used, in my experience. I agree with unsigned above: it's usually the deletionists who fail to heed the WP:YESPOV guidelines who are the troublemakers. -- Kendrick7 talk 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This essay has been marked as a guideline - I won't immediately invoke it against itself by removing the guideline notice, but can someone point to a discussion where consensus has been achieved to mark it as such?-- Kotniski ( talk) 19:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, WP:BURDEN says "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed," and this essay seems to leave out the "lacking a reliable source" bit. So it does seem different. I worry that this will lead to editors wanting to remove nearly every sentence of an article, since the borderline proposed here is no longer "reliably sourced", but "has consensus". You'd be surprised how many people can be found to say something like... yeah, it's sourced by the New York Times, and the United Nations, and the European Union, but all those agencies are biased, so it should go, unless you convince a majority of editors on this article. It seems to be saying that consensus is more important than verifiability. -- GRuban ( talk) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)