Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Daily Mail (Score 1) 70

However, Wikipedia policy doesn't say, "No citations to unreliable sources allowed anywhere" It's more "mark it as unreliable if you really need to use it".

I think the expectation is that people use "this has sat in the article for a month without a reliable citation" as an excuse to remove a contentious claim from an article.

Comment Re: the aim is to reach consensus of opinion (Score 1) 70

By teaching the controversy. If one set of reliable sources says one thing, but another set of sources of comparable reliability says something else, the article can mention disagreement on facts. But editors must be assess "comparable reliability" carefully to avoid giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints.

Comment Paragraph-by-paragraph verifiability (Score 1) 70

There are other guidelines dealing with material within an article

Very true. But each paragraph of an article also has to be verifiable. Otherwise, a paragraph supported solely by unreliable sources should be removed. This goes double if the subject is a living person. As Wikipedia:Verifiability puts it: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced."

Comment Notability would ban that subject in the 1st place (Score 4, Informative) 70

An editor I met at a recent London "Wikimeet" said he'd used the Daily Mail as a source in the last week, as it was the only source available for the subject he was writing about.

According to Wikipedia's notability guideline, if no reliable sources can be found about a subject, any article about it would fail Wikipedia's verifiability policy. For this reason, the subject shouldn't have an article in the first place. That's what Wikipedia means by "non-notable": there is no way to make a verifiable article about the subject.

Comment Re:100 years ago, who cares? (Score 1) 478

I don't have any good predictions for the year 2047 on that subject.

Really? Why not? Because you claim today, with absolute certainty, that the Armenian genocide is non-relevant information (because of age). If that is a valid argument then it must be universally applicable. When you argue "if event X if older than Y years then it is non-relevant information" you cannot cherry pick values for X for which the argument should be true and "uncertain" for others. There are no reasons why that argument should not be applicable for the Nazi's killing of jews, Stalin's killing of Gulag prisoners, or other historic events if it is a valid argument.

It is not a valid argument, which is why I pick on it to expose it as such. Deep in your heart you know this as well I assume. I find it sadly disturbing that instead of admitting this you choose to try to deflect and thereby not agreeing on that calling the Nazi killing of jews during WW2 non-relevant information (when discussing history) will never be acceptable.

The (implicit) argument "nothing can be predicted about the future" is not valid either. Of course many things are difficult or impossible to predict about the future, but not everything. Example: I claim today that a man that never admits mistakes is a dishonest man, and I will most certainly continue to do so in 2047 as well.

I do not understand why you engage the way you do. Could you help me understand by trying to explain what you lay down as problem and cause for your action?

What is the problem?
What is the cause?
What is the solution?
Emotionally engage in advocating that the Armenian genocide can be ignored.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz