User:Marjan Tomki SI/Verifiability

Troubleshooting WP Verifiability principle

Verifiability is not equal to finding accepted sources

I wholeheartably (and automaticlally, by long use) agree to "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.", but to have it as equivalent to "Verifialability to an accepted source" is - from my point of view, one of major peoblems that needs to be troubleshooted, and if possible (and agreed to), trouble shot.

I shall be bold discussing those principles, and their (almost surely unwanted) side-effects (if possible within wikimedia, where other projects might address them), but not bold knowinlgy violating them - as are in force now, 20210211 - on WP. Because of that my contribution at WP shall - mostly - revert to correction of gramatical and other evident errors, that I shall encounter using WP data.

Where I won't already have WP reliable sources to support my proposed correction of error in contents (not spelling, grammar or form) already at hand, I'll suggest changes on talk pages with what info I'll have, so someone else that has access to sources can follow through if (s)he agrees with my view (as I used to do before I created the account here). I'll still contribute as best as I am allowed to (within constraints specified), but my effort for change shall be focussed elsewhere.

Tom Shanly article, the one that brought me here and that I still think is worthy and needed, probably won't be written in my lifetime; he (and a lot of similar primary info) may be forgotten when my (and his) generation dies out (I'll hopefully be able to contribute for another decade or two, but of course may die today, 20210211). (Moved from User:Marjan Tomki SI main to this subpage 20210402)

WP no original research

Problem is, that finding, understanding and evaluating sources can be seen a kind of original research; also paraphrasing (to prevent copyright infringements) reliably, in a concise and interesting way can be seen so. Citation needed template (with un-sourced contents can be removed at any time) for so rephrased text with overeager (and/or overburdened) patrollers can be a problem sometimes.

More on that and when sources (paper/digital trace published in reliable sources) really can't be found, on other subpage here.

Collision of two WP Policies

At Critical path method#Crash duration there is template {{unreferenced section }}| dated April 2018.

The problem is that by my experience sources to verify the claims in the section are manuals for currently used tools (that a user like myself has really used, so verified, and anyone else could repeat that verification), but citing (especially only one of) them would probably be against commercials like contents.

So the claim in question is notable (needed if you want to understand), and verifiable, but I don't see how it can be sourced to WP standard. Without that (or similar other parts of this and other articles) the contents would be seriously impaired (both less useful and less interesting).

A hint: too strict reliance to published sources remind me to scholastics - where people could be prosecuted for not staying aligned with bible (and Aristotle). It reminds me also od Prešeren (also author or the poem which is SI anthem), who also wrote a critical poem Al prav se piše kaшa ali kaſha about sholastic like treatment of subject how to write the letter for which SI language now uses š. There he tersely mentioned the famous discussion about ass'es shadow in ancient Abdera

References