Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Group 4

Verifiability mediation (general talk)
Work groups: one (talk) • two (talk) • three (talk) • four (talk)
RfC draft

Archives

/Archive 1 - steps 4-5

This is the discussion page for work group four in the verifiability mediation. Note: The previous guidelines for this page are no longer in effect. If you would like to add new threads, feel free. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improving draft 0[edit]

From looking at the results of step 5, there seems to be a rough consensus to use draft 0 in the RfC. Is anyone unhappy with the wording? Is there any way it can be improved? The drafts page is now unprotected again, so you are free to use it to submit proposed changes to the draft 0 wording. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph of Draft 0[edit]

IMHO it has one serious problem. The last sentence implies that material can only be removed if it violates a guideline. This is not how Wikipedia works. Editors can and do decide to remove material for a multitude of reasons. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please submit a draft with that change so that we can see what it looks like. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes:

Verifiability is required for inclusion but does not guarantee inclusion; other policies, guidelines, and considerations apply.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a variant of what you have.

Verifiability is required for inclusion but does not guarantee inclusion. Other policies, guidelines, and considerations apply, most notably No Original Research, Neutral Point of View, and Copyright.

However, the repeating of "inclusion" is not good style. Also, may need more than just the word "inclusion", e.g. "adding information to Wikipedia". Here's another possibility.

Verifiability is required for adding information to Wikipedia articles, but does not guarantee that it will be accepted. Other policies, guidelines, and considerations apply, most notably No Original Research, Neutral Point of View, and Copyright. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. North8000 (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This may be a little better.

Verifiability is required for information added to Wikipedia articles, but does not guarantee that it will be accepted. Other policies, guidelines, and considerations apply, most notably No Original Research, Neutral Point of View, and Copyright.

A possible problem with all of these is the vague "considerations". Here's the original paragraph of Draft 0 for comparison.

Material that complies with this policy may still be removed if the material does not comply with other policies and guidelines, most notably No Original Research, Neutral Point of View, and Copyright.

Maybe the idea you would like to include could be discussed in another section of WP:V with the "considerations" of the above versions wikilinked to it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed another possible problem with the last few variations. Since "considerations" is vague, the last part of the paragraph seems to connect "considerations" with No Original Research, Neutral Point of View, and Copyright.

Here's a variant of the original last paragraph of Draft 0 that may satisfy your idea.

Material that complies with this policy may still be removed if the material does not comply with other policies and guidelines, most notably No Original Research, Neutral Point of View, and Copyright. Also, material that does not improve an article may be removed, even if it complies with all policies and guidelines; any dispute in this regard would be settled by consensus.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considerations covers all of those other things without having wp:ver go off topic and try to define them. But "considerations" is not essential to the fix. But IMHO getting rid of "may be removed if....." is essential. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance with this policy does not guarantee that material will be accepted. It must also comply with other policies and guidelines, most notably No Original Research, Neutral Point of View, and Copyright.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but my point is about something else. The problem is that it implies (or can be interpreted as saying) that the only valid reason for removal of material is if it violates policy. Editors should be free to discuss removal for other reasons. (e.g. off topic, too lengthy, poor grammar, clearly in error, redundant, etc.) North8000 (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance with the Verifiability policy does not guarantee that material will be accepted. For example, it must also comply with other policies and guidelines, most notably No Original Research, Neutral Point of View, and Copyright.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that solves it. North8000 (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made that rewrite of the last paragraph of Draft 0 and entered it as Draft 6. I thought we had a good collaboration. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

first sentence[edit]

I have a concern with the first sentence, which implies WP:V is more important than WP:RS, and WP:NEUTRAL. In fact these three policies can only be understood together. I do not think this proposal to give a meaningless priority can achieve consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For years, verifiability has been presented as the foremost requirement with the beginning phrase, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability..." .

The limitations of the verifiability requirement are addressed in the last paragraph of Draft 0. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: add to the end of the above "and Draft 6" --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, would you be happy with a wording that makes the importance of verifiability clear, without calling it the "foremost" requirement? Maybe something like "Verifiability is an essential requirement in Wikipedia"? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I considered sentences like the one you mentioned, but they could be applied to each policy and guideline. I think it should be specific to Verifiability. Perhaps an improvement on your sentence would be "Verifiability is one of the most essential requirements in Wikipedia." One I considered previously was "Verifiability is essential for the credibility of Wikipedia." I didn't get any feedback on it. Maybe I can get some now.

However, I'm concerned that we would be giving up a good first sentence with "foremost" because of criticism that is from a very small minority, and that a large majority of editors in the greater community would accept it as a good first sentence. The long-standing first sentence of the policy places Verifiability as the foremost requirement, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability...". Of the significant objections to the long-standing first sentence, the "foremost" aspect wasn't one of them.

In any case, I'm open to suggestions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like "Verifiability is one of the most essential requirements in Wikipedia." I won't force you to change anything, though, as that would rather undermine the point of me being the mediator. :) I do share Andrew's concern that it might be difficult for a sentence with "foremost requirement" in it to gain consensus. Sure, we have had the "threshold" wording in the policy for a long time, but you know as well as I do how difficult it is to change the wording of a policy. We simply don't know how people will react to a wording that they haven't seen before. Because of this, my concern is that we should try and be as inclusive as possible with whatever words we choose. If we can find a wording that no-one in this mediation disagrees with, then it will probably see less disagreement in the RfC. Let's see what Andrew thinks of the "one of the most essential" wording, and decide what to do from there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a new draft, draft 7, that includes "one of the most essential requirements". — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. BTW sorry that I have been quite stretched by non WP things lately. Just as a general remark about the concern of changing old wordings, I guess indeed this is what we aim to test, and I understand that we are deliberately setting out to make different drafts including drafts that do not limit themselves to old wordings. The problem I have with this wording is quite a simple logical issue. Snappy sloganizing should not replace logic in a policy lead, and that has been an on-going concern in this whole discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

proposal to change the link from WP:Copyright to WP:V#Copyright and plagiarism[edit]

The problem is that linking to WP:COPYRIGHT gives no clue as to why it is mentioned in the lede. After S Marshall explained the theory, I tried without success to search for "close paraphrasing" in WP:COPYRIGHT or WP:COPYVIO. The point is that linking to WP:COPYRIGHT in the lede is a truism, because of course editors should consider copyrights. But it is not useful. The simple answer is to link in the lede to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Copyright and plagiarism, instead of WP:COPYRIGHT. Unscintillating (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the policies WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:COPY, that fit in the context of the paragraph, not the verifiability sections WP:Verifiability#Original_research, WP:Verifiability#Neutrality, and WP:Verifiability#Copyright and plagiarism. Here's the paragraph from Draft 6 for reference.

Compliance with the Verifiability policy does not guarantee that material will be accepted. For example, it must also comply with other policies and guidelines, most notably No Original Research, Neutral Point of View, and Copyright.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is it your viewpoint that the lede is presenting material that does not exist in the body of the policy? Or maybe you are taking the view that the handling of the material lower on the policy page is sufficiently weak that it is better ignored in the lede? Would not "fitting in the context of the paragraph" be a cause to mention WP:NOT, content forks, non-notability, and close paraphrasing? To provide my own response to this last question, I think that the intent behind the phrase "does not guarantee" is specifically covered by WP:Due weight. Unscintillating (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we don't seem to be communicating. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading this correctly, Unscintillating is of the opinion that we need to change the WP:COPYRIGHT link to something that mentions close paraphrasing, and that the best solution is to just link to the section further down in the policy. I have seen the pattern myself a lot too - a new contributor reads the verifiability policy, thinks "gosh, I never knew Wikipedia was so strict about sources!", and proceeds to stick very closely to the sources that they read, to the extent that they are violating its copyright. I am not sure exactly what the best way is to deal with this here, but I can see that if neither WP:COPYRIGHT or WP:COPYVIO mention close paraphrasing, then the wording of those pages needs to be updated as well. Unscintillating, would you be happy with a link to WP:COPYRIGHT if it was edited to include wording about close paraphrasing? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am speaking to principle, not my happiness. The principle is that if links in the lede link away from the WP:V policy page, they are mis-organized. I am also drawing attention to the more general problem of the structural organization of the lede, which analysis shows is part of the problem historically with VnT. I see now that Bob's reason to list WP:COPYRIGHT (an example of no guarantee of inclusion) is not related to S Marshall's reason to list WP:COPYRIGHT in the lede (close paraphrasing). As such, I consent that my proposal to relink this text was misdirected. Nonetheless, IMO, the material remains a truism and could be removed. Editors do not need this point mentioned in the WP:V lede or anywhere else on WP:V to know that copyrights exist and are legally binding. The argument that the link cannot be linked onto the policy page with the same meaning is evidence that the content is not relevant to the policy. To the related point regarding the current policy page, adding the word "paraphrasing" to the WP:COPYRIGHT page seems appropriate, but wouldn't actually let readers of the WP:V lede know that there is a relationship. Unscintillating (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how having links in the lede that link away from the WP:V policy page makes the links mis-organized. Could you explain what you mean by "mis-organized" here? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I've spent much time in my life looking at abstracts, but I don't recall ever seeing a citation in an abstract. That would be because if you want to understand more about what the abstract is saying, you know where to look. Likewise, the Standard-Operating-Procedures "Purpose" sections that I've seen don't have citations. If they use terminology that needs explaining, there is a "Definitions" section for that. The point is that material in an introduction that does not appear in the main body of the work, such as VnT, is an indication that the introduction is not properly working as an introduction/summary. Unscintillating (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking to sources appropriately[edit]

Mr. Stradivarius, Regarding your comment, "I have seen the pattern myself a lot too - a new contributor reads the verifiability policy, thinks 'gosh, I never knew Wikipedia was so strict about sources!', and proceeds to stick very closely to the sources that they read, to the extent that they are violating its copyright." — I think there is a useful footnote in the current version of WP:V that could be used, with modifications, in the respective second paragraphs of the drafts.

An appropriate inline citation is evidence that information is verifiable. Inline citations are required for any information that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. Suitable inline citations should refer to published reliable sources that explicitly support the information being presented.^[1] For help on adding citations, see Citing sources.

_________

^ Also, see the section Using sources of the policy No original research, which says that material from sources should be summarized or rephrased in your own words.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added Draft 8, which is Draft 7 with the addition of the footnote. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good idea to me. I don't have a strong preference either way, though, so don't worry too much about trying to make a version which I will accept. I came into this mediation not really minding which particular version of the lede we end up with, after all. Let's see what everyone else thinks about the footnote. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technical problem on project page[edit]

I just created Draft 9,[1] but the displayed Draft 9 does not display correctly. In the footnote, it incorrectly has a wikilink for No original research instead of the italicized No original research, which was the only change from Draft 8. In other words, in the footnote the italicized version is what should be displayed, as indicated in the diff, but the wikilink version is incorrectly displayed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got an explanation and fix at Village Pump.[2]

The fix is: change {{reflist}} to {{reflist|1}}. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It was an problem of my own making. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Also, see the section Using sources of the policy No original research, which says that material from sources should be summarized or rephrased in your own words.

[1]