Slim ownership of WP:V Options

[papaya]

After a loooong, drawn out compromise session, Blueboar comes up with a new formula to blunt the "not truth" dumb line, so when the discussion dies down and someone moves to close the discussion a few days early, SV seizes the opportunity to turn the whole thing on its head and attempt to force the whole process to start over.

[Detective]

I'm not one to give WP the benefit of the doubt, but there is something to be said in favour of giving all sides of the story, provided it is done in a genuinely unbiased way (a big if, of course). If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something, even if it is rejected by the great majority of other sources, then it would be wrong for something claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge to ignore that. There should be an acknowledgement that "a few authorities say that the sky is usually green[127][129][133], although this view is strongly deprecated by other sources [128][130]".

If, however, something is only asserted by total crackpots, it should be ignored or shunted off somewhere else, e.g. Flat Earthers. I leave others to decide how to deal with Ottava and Communicat.

[iii]

If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something, even if it is rejected by the great majority of other sources, then it would be wrong for something claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge to ignore that. There should be an acknowledgement that "a few authorities say that the sky is usually green[127][129][133], although this view is strongly deprecated by other sources [128][130]".

If, however, something is only asserted by total crackpots, it should be ignored or shunted off somewhere else, e.g. Flat Earthers.

And by what metric do you propose to determine that the Green Skiers are authorities while the Flat Earthers are crackpots?

The "sum of all human knowledge" is a worthless canard. Wikipedia functions as a first-stop-spot for research for many who are unaware of its limitations. Those that realize that, including educators, PR-representatives, image consultants, and other propagandists of various stripes, will forever be removing "knowledge" from Wikipedia regardless of the authoritativeness of the silliness-purveyor until or unless Wikipedia shuts down its editing functionality.

[Detective]

If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something, even if it is rejected by the great majority of other sources, then it would be wrong for something claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge to ignore that. There should be an acknowledgement that "a few authorities say that the sky is usually green[127][129][133], although this view is strongly deprecated by other sources [128][130]".

If, however, something is only asserted by total crackpots, it should be ignored or shunted off somewhere else, e.g. Flat Earthers.

And by what metric do you propose to determine that the Green Skiers are authorities while the Flat Earthers are crackpots?

I have already answered that. "If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something", e.g. (hypothetically) that the sky is green, that is my metric. I concede that then you have the problem of deciding what are genuinely good sources, which is very difficult without expert knowledge. It is a fundamental problem with the WP model that expertise is ignored, even deprecated. Still, I think that we'd all agree that if something is stated in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, or a book published by the press of a leading university, it must have some credibility.

[communicat]

If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something, even if it is rejected by the great majority of other sources, then it would be wrong for something claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge to ignore that. There should be an acknowledgement that "a few authorities say that the sky is usually green[127][129][133], although this view is strongly deprecated by other sources [128][130]".

If, however, something is only asserted by total crackpots, it should be ignored or shunted off somewhere else, e.g. Flat Earthers.

And by what metric do you propose to determine that the Green Skiers are authorities while the Flat Earthers are crackpots?

I have already answered that. "If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something", e.g. (hypothetically) that the sky is green, that is my metric. I concede that then you have the problem of deciding what are genuinely good sources, which is very difficult without expert knowledge. It is a fundamental problem with the WP model that expertise is ignored, even deprecated. Still, I think that we'd all agree that if something is stated in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, or a book published by the press of a leading university, it must have some credibility.

With regard to credibility: advocacy group sources are banned; yet there are some very knowledgeable advocacy groups with experts on their staff. This is an example of WP's very simplistic one-size-fits-all approach to sourcing rules. Because some advocacy groups are questionable, all are banned. Because many self-published sources are vanity publishing, all are banned -- even if written by experts in their respective fields. It figures: simplistic rules for simpleton editors and admins.