The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Verifiability RfC 2012
Michaeldsuarez
post Thu 5th July 2012, 3:57pm
Post #1


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ver...bility/2012_RfC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ver...12_RfC/Comments

"Verifiability, not Truth" is up for discussion once again.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
FightingMac
post Sat 7th July 2012, 8:49am
Post #2


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun 3rd Jul 2011, 4:27pm
Member No.: 58,650

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 5th July 2012, 6:57pm) *


It strikes me as a sterile debate, reminding me somewhat of the 1920 Vienna positivism in philosophy championed by Fredddie Ayer et al. It can't be long before we have a Popper style counterculture emerging, insisting that on the contrary deniability should be the test, and finally the emergence of a full blooded Kuhnian relativism insisting that we regard each article as a paradigm whose ultimate worth lies in its utility ... erm ... call that a covenient truth.

In fact, in practice, we essentially have relativism at work in the emergence of cabals - the kind of thing that allows editors like Ceoil, the noted Irish dairyist, asethete and Wikipedia trouble-maker, to assert absolute nonsense such as Vincent van Gogh's final Auvers period paintings being exceptionally 'dark' (on the contrary they are placidly beautiful), have it left unchallenged for years and finally find it defended when challenged by such luminaries of the fine arts as the Sydney psychiatrist Casliber and the hissy extreme-right American pedagogue TruthKeeper88, whose heuristic of borrowing as many library books on any topic that takes your fancy and copying out in your own own words the bits that strike your fancy is such a boon to the cause of learning everywhere.

More to the point would be a debate on selecting and assessing the relevant importance and significance of references.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post Wed 25th July 2012, 7:15pm
Post #3


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=504028201

The discussion will be closed on July 28, 2012.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Thu 26th July 2012, 3:41pm
Post #4


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



I wish someone would summarize the differences between these options. I haven't been following the debate and at a glance I can't discern much difference between them.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post Mon 30th July 2012, 12:35pm
Post #5


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ver...sing_statements

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=504820980

The discussion has been closed, and WP:Verifiability's lead section has been rewritten.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Wed 1st August 2012, 1:26pm
Post #6


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Mon 30th July 2012, 1:35pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ver...sing_statements

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=504820980

The discussion has been closed, and WP:Verifiability's lead section has been rewritten.


And I still don't even know what the outcome means or what the ramifications could be. The authors of the RFC should have done a much better job of articulating the distinctions between the options.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Retrospect
post Fri 3rd August 2012, 3:44pm
Post #7


Londoner born and bred
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed 7th Dec 2011, 1:16pm
From: London
Member No.: 71,989

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 1st August 2012, 2:26pm) *

And I still don't even know what the outcome means or what the ramifications could be.

Hey, don't you suppose that's exactly what people intended? If even someone as experienced as you doesn't know the bloody hell what it means, just think what the blighters can do to some poor newbie that crosses them. "What do you mean by inserting that stuff? WP:V! Off with your head!"
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th 6 17, 5:09am