This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RalphLender (talk | contribs) at 14:40, 6 September 2006 (→Barratt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:40, 6 September 2006 by RalphLender (talk | contribs) (→Barratt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome to Misplaced Pages!
|
GeorgeMoney ☺ (talk) ☺ (Help Desk) ☺ (Reference Desk) ☺ (Help Channel) 09:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Modifying
Thanks
Thanks for finding the link. It sounded correct enough, but I couldn't find precisely that wording. Good you found it. Verifiability is important, especially in criticisms of living persons. Even then one must be careful.
Jimbo Wales has some interesting things to say about criticisms of living persons:
- "..... editors who don't stop to think that reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do." - Jimmy Wales
- "If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as , please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page." - Jimmy Wales
- Steve Bennett wrote:
- > I'm happy to be corrected, but I was under the
- > impression that as long as we can convey that the information is not
- > guaranteed accurate (by the use of cite tags), then "speculative"
- > information is better than none.
- Absolutely not. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. - Jimmy Wales
- Philip Welch wrote:
- > On May 18, 2006, at 2:48 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
- >
- >> If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?
- >>
- >> This could be a change in what's considered acceptable rather than an
- >> eternal law. Early in Misplaced Pages's development, we took what we could
- >> get. Now that we have a crapload of content, we can set stricter rules.
- Absolutely.
- We have how many new articles a day? If people had the good sense to nuke 100 articles a day, just on the grounds of being BAD in the sense we are discussing (having unsourced claims about living people which would be libel if false), our growth rate would hardly suffer at all.
- We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it. - Jimmy Wales
-- Fyslee 08:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Modifying
Usually it is not good to edit someone else's comment unless it contains personal attacks or incivility. If you do modify comments with personal attacks and incivility, usually you would put "" where the attack was. Read more: WP:REFACTOR. GeorgeMoney 08:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Barratt
Just to clarify. i noticed that tehre are some people very close to this subject commenting on this page. i had never heard of barratt untill recently and I'm not even sure how I stumbled across the page. i would like to think the comments i have made to date are from an outside perspective. Please don't think i am in any camp with regard to this issue. David D. (Talk) 08:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've read your edits and find them well sourced; too bad some others have a specific point of view which causes them to delete factual and well documented statements. RalphLender 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see the same sort of problem on the article, Advocates for Children in Therapy, which has a loose connection to Quackwatch and SB. regards. RalphLender 14:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)