Suggestions:
+ Leading Edge namespace? |
Reading Talk:Sarah_Palin, especially the mention of [1], makes me wonder whether Wikipedia should have a sandbox or namespace where developing stories that fall short of WP:RS can be tracked -- a "Leading Edge" or "Not Ready for Primetime" area with appropriate disclaimers. Many "unbalanced" and "POV-section" tags could be removed by moving the questionable material to the second-tier namespace.
|
| Dialogue: |
Wikipedia is based on consensus and NPOV. Consensus is achieved in one of two ways: Either we silence the opposition, or we dialogue with the opposition. I prefer the latter approach. We all have POV's. NPOV, to the extent that it is achievable, is a BALANCE of conflicting POV's. It is achieved by adding POV's not by subtracting them.
With this in mind, I open my talk page to those who are willing to participate in a constructive work-related dialogue. If we put down stereotypes and come to know the editorial concerns of the other, then we will be better able to collaborate on this project.
|
30 Aug 2008:
+ Second attempt
+ Verifiability and truth |
Your userpage is ... a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working.[2]
I'm here, first of all, to learn HOW to contribute to the wikipedia project. The editorial policy documents are daunting. However, the presence of over 2 million articles tells me that it is at least POSSIBLE to contribute.
Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth.[3]
In the first overly-polemical version of this page, I attempted to explain my orientation to this project. Now that I've read WP:UP, I will try again.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. [4]
I understand that the encyclopedia as a whole aims for verifiability, based on WP:RS. But I believe that the contributors must aim for something higher, namely, truth. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that the preponderance of reliable sources promote Establishment views. But the Establishment is often grievously wrong. If we were working in the Middle Ages, our reliable sources would be telling us that the world is flat. An encyclopedia that simply parrots such sources would not be very helpful. I want wikipedia to be helpful and useful. And truth is far more useful than verifiability. If our civilization stands on a precipice, that truth needs to be told; otherwise our civilization will end up in the abyss, along with its encyclopedias. To disregard truth is to spend one's time counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Truth matters, whether we choose to admit it or not.
As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. .... In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your userpage, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons.[5]
I hope this version is not deemed offensive, but if it is, please tell me. I want to find out, through experience, what is acceptable and what isn't.
|
