Domoni
Welcome
editHello, Domoni, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Christopherlin 23:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Sources
editHi Domoni, the bottom line is that Wiki is run by consensus, not by rigid application of policies and guidelines. However, when there is a disagreement, the policies and guidelines do come strongly into focus. This can certainly create the result that something which actually contains sound research is not allowed, while something with dubious (or even false) information is considered to be from a verifiable source and therefore retained. This is addressed in WP:Verifiability. It is up to individual editors as to what they want to use and cite, and as to how they judge what is acceptable and what isn't, so as to your questions about specific cases, I don't think there is a final answer. Wiki is full of inconsistencies in many regards. If you want to cite something, I suggest you do, and see if anyone disagrees with you. The best practice is sound editing by good editors from a NPOV. In an ideal world this would not lead to any disputes. I hope this helps. Tyrenius 18:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Domoni, if it's any consolation, I would not classify what I've read on your site as a "random bit of defamatory bloggerel", as I think it makes a challenging observation.
- You are right: Verifiability is a policy and hence carries considerable weight, as it has been agreed by a consensus of editors, and is almost certain to be upheld by a wider consensus of editors in any issue which involves it. Unsourced material is equally invalid for criticism and praise, but it is more important to remove the criticism immediately 1) because we are considering the effect on the human being who is the subject of the biography and wish to be responsible in this 2) because in extremis it could lead to legal problems. The emphasis is always on a balanced portrayal of the person. In the case of someone who was generally regarded as a despot, then a balanced view would show far more "against" them than in their favour.
- Re. the standard for credible sources, the policy gives some clear indications, but, as I've mentioned before, this is subject to consensus and has to be judged in context on a case by case basis and according to the editors involved. It is not just a matter of opinion, nor is it necessarily a rigid rule. Ideally it should be a matter of commonsense and sound judgement. Wiki policies are not equivalent to a national legal system—see Wikipedia:Wikilawyering.
- Re. "information on Jardin solely referenced by websites should be excised from the article". The reason anything of that kind is in the article, is because an editor put it there, and no other editors have removed it or challenged it. That's consensus. If you feel it should be removed, you can do so, as any editor can, but please read WP:Point first.
- There's another good rule too: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.
- Get back to me if you want to discuss further.
Blogs
editI thought you might find this section of an article interesting re. blogs. NB not directly comparable, as it is not critical material in a biog. Tyrenius 02:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)