 Verifiability RfC 2012 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Michaeldsuarez |
Post
#1
|
|
Ãœber Member  Group: Contributors Posts: 562 Joined: From: New York, New York Member No.: 24,428  |
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. |
   |
 
|
  |
Replies
| Michaeldsuarez |
Post
#2
|
|
Ãœber Member Group: Contributors Posts: 562 Joined: From: New York, New York Member No.: 24,428 |
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. |
|
|
|
| everyking |
Post
#3
|
|
Postmaster Group: Regulars Posts: 2,368 Joined: 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. |
|
|
|
| Retrospect |
Post
#4
|
|
Londoner born and bred Group: Contributors Posts: 263 Joined: From: London Member No.: 71,989 |
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!" |
|
|
|
Posts in this topic
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |