Manual Archives

1, 2, 3

Given the particularly limited input on this discussion, I would like an RfC raised on this issue.

As the above discussion shows, the arguments put against Wikinews being a reliable source are:

1. It's a wiki, anyone can edit it.
2. It's self-published.
3. Wikinewsies are not 'qualified' journalists.

Those points are rebutted thus:

1. It is a wiki which uses FlaggedRevs as part of the publication process.
2. There is a formal policy for independent peer review.
3. Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward, Walter Cronkite, George Orwell—all well-respected for their journalistic work, and undertook no formal journalism studies. Additionally, contributing to Wikinews has been assigned coursework for degree-level journalism students from the University of Wollongong and University of Southern Indiana.

I can fully accept that synthesis work on Wikinews is not appropriate, the sources which Wikinews draws from are likely more appropriate. However, Wikinews' original reporting can, and should, be used as a source with which Wikipedia can be enriched. --Brian McNeil /^talk 13:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

"Little known to the mainstream is that the Wikinews’ volunteer formal review process is tight and accountable, with checking and peer review of standards that mainstream news generally no longer adheres. Similar to The Economist, Wikinews contributors are permitted to write anonymously, in joint contributions, which are heavily reviewed to a standard far higher than a self-published blog (Thorsen, 2008) (Bruns, 2005). Veracity checks by Wikinews reviewers ensure at least two independently verified sources for every news point made in a story. Wikinews has no commercial imperative over the work. Qualified reviewers are experienced volunteers and work on copy as it arrives. Wikinews is unique, in that review is applied according to strict policies and processes. Like any act of publication, freedom of expression is limited by the prior restraints arising essentially from law, ethics and news policy."

This rather lengthy quote is from David Blackall's paper, Wikinews – a safe haven for learning journalism, free of the usual suspects of spin and commercial agendas. Although I am a co-author on the paper, these are David's words, and he is a senior lecturer in the UoW school of journalism. --Brian McNeil /^talk 14:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you propose holding such an RFC (Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources is the natural venue for "general" reliability questions), and who do you propose drafting a neutrally worded RFC statement with prior to commencing an RFC. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If I knew where was the most appropriate place to put this RfC, I would not have placed it here. That, as the policy states (and great big caution-signed message at the top of editing this page warns), is precisely what this page is for. I believe that all the criticisms raised on the Reliable sources noticeboard were rebutted, but people are slow to change their minds; especially when doing so is an admission they were wrong.

I am, largely, the outsider to Wikipedia. I have to place some degree of trust that the above can, and will, be refactored into a 'balanced' request for comments by someone whose reputation is not invested in one side or the other of the dispute. And, that whoever does so will be able to correctly identify the most-appropriate place to put the RfC.

I do have to note that you're challenging the request for wider input, and not the points I see as the basis for your argument, which I offer a rebuttal to. I note the discussion has moved on, but that what I can only describe as "fundamentalist" attitudes are being displayed by some. --Brian McNeil /^talk 20:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to read the consensus on WP:RS/N perhaps needs some improvement, but as you note you're not highly experienced with wikipedia so that's fine. Regarding the RFC; I don't believe the Wikinews has had its reliability addressed seriously or definitively by the community in the last twelve months, so it is fair to try to see if consensus has changed and make arguments. What I'd suggest is that we draft the RFC here, and when it is ready to go (ie: we both agree that it represents a neutrally worded solicitation of external input) we take it live on WP:IRS's talk page, and solicit external input as appropriate (village pump, centralised discussions, etc.). That way we can definitively gauge the wider community's sentiments. We can also plan to get an external closer for the RFC from an early period. How does that sound? Draft here together, then when it is ready, take it to WP:IRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced with Wikipedia? I'd rather not, thank you! ;-) I can understand the value of longer-running debates, but lack the patience to participate. But, what I'm seeking is someone who cares neither one way or the other to distill-down the arguments for and against.

Every point I've seen added to the debate by Wikipedians who've done little-to-no research into what Wikinews' peer-review process is gives me less and less respect for "consensus". Consensus could say the moon is made of green cheese, it would not make it true. Yes, I know it's one of the cornerstones of how Wikipedia works, but so is participating in a debate, or discussion, from an informed point of view. I see precious little of that—which is what gives me the scope to make the rather scathing "green cheese" remark.

Wikinews gets hit both ways. There's not just your arguments, dismissing the project's work as unreliable. The other side of the coin is we're accused of not following a "wiki ethos" in having independent review, archiving (i.e. fully protecting articles a week after publication), and basically not letting absolutely anyone 'publish' whatever they like.

What I do not see, where you claim there is "consensus", is any form of cogent rebuttal of the points raised in favour of considering Wikinews a reliable source. Really, I ask you, is the fact that we use the same base software as Wikipedia a reasonable, rational, and supportable argument against considering Wikinews reliable?

It is because of such, frankly idiotic, arguments (yes, I know it wasn't one of yours, but you should challenge such dubious reasoning) that I do not feel there is enough common ground for us to work together on taking this to a more formal RfC, and that someone else should do so. --Brian McNeil /^talk 22:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct: the software base doesn't matter. The reliability issue is that Wikinews is open access, and that the standards of review do not meet the required standards for en.wikipedia reliability (the Germans are much more lax, for example; and the Dutch are positively permissive). en.wikipedia has extremely strict standards regarding what an appropriate editorial standard for en.wikipedia's reliability standards are. RS/N has over five plus years rejected openly contributed material without a strict (very strict) editorial policies. If your primary project is Wikinews then I salute you, it is a noble thing to do, I'd rank wikinews well above fox, but well below the Guardian—kind of in the Sydney Morning Herald category of quality. But quality is not the perverse and bizarre thing that wikipedia demands of reliability. To change the consensus about the standards required would take a major RFC, because these standards are in place because of the contested nature of en.wikipedia, and because of some foundational choices regarding discipline and content disputes that were made on en.wikipedia. To reverse these would be a substantial community decision, opening the way for the general use of "find a grave" or "Jane's pornography blog" grade sources. And I don't know that wikinews would wish to meet en.wikipedia's demands regarding reliability—they would be onerous. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian. Are you interested in crafting a neutrally worded RFC or not? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I advised him to request the assistance of an uninvolved administrator on WP:AN if he is seriously intrested in doing so. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to at least try, can you point out any items I've missed with the three I listed above? Or, whilst keeping brief, phrase them more to your liking? That's probably the best starting point. Dominus' suggestion to then get an uninvolved administrator to distil things down is going to be easier if all the 'cards are on the table'. But, I won't be participating in the discussion anymore tonight, so no rush on that. --Brian McNeil /^talk 00:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what an RFC ought to look like on this topic. I suggest we edit it in the section above, together, until the content is filled out, and we both agree that this is the RFC that should go forward. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

are we doing all wikinewses, or just en.? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! I'm just dropping in to reassure you I've not abandoned this. As well as taking a break to avoid ending up excessively stressed with this, I've been going over some of the threads I'm tracking on a piece of investigative journalism related to the UK's draft communications data bill.

I think I'll get zero argument from my fellow Wikinewsies if I say that in characterising us as a news source, it isn't the majority of our output that the discussion concerns. Articles where we rely totally on more mainstream sources (what we call synthesis) are not stuff we'd expect to see Wikipedia cite. Logic dictates if we pick up information from the NYT, BBC, CNN and AP, you go back to those sources. [Aside: I do wonder, with the trend for mainstream news sources to vanish behind paywalls, if such synthesis works will, over time, provide value to Wikipedia if verified whilst the 'primary' sources are still accessible as matching them. But, that's a whole different ball of wax - exploiting our archiving policy, and wiki's article auditing to avoid losing content because the base sources are now inaccessible.]

The sort of stuff I'm looking at, and commenting on my own reportage is easiest, would be things like my article on the ACLU and EFF challeinging secret court orders. You can easily see that, assuming it isn't completely fabricated, a huge amount of work went into it.

From a review of yesterday's duh-ramah, can I offer a measly suggestion on filling the above out more? That is, the heading "Is wikinews a reliable source?". I'd propose replacing it with "Under what circumstances can Wikinews comfortably be accepted as a reliable source?" This trims the scope, ruthlessly, back to just our Original Reporting works and, I would hope, turns the presentation's viewing from "Wikinews is always unreliable to may be reliable, and here are the criteria you need to examine". The more articulate negative arguments on the noticeboard did indeed play up certain mainstream sources having a reputation for being reliable, but that such was not to be blindly accepted.

I'll close my, overly limited, input on this for this evening by saying "thank you" for helping move this towards an RfC. It is always a pleasure to be proven wrong when one assumes that someone is arguing dogmatically. --Brian McNeil /^talk 22:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just re-reading the above, I note you ask "Are we doing all (language) Wikinews(es), or just English?" Other languages have adopted the same use of Flagged Revisions and independent peer-review to obtain Google News listings. They cannot be assumed to be as-rigorous. They're going down the same road as English Wikinews because of what a GNews listing can mean, but each is a distinct, independent, group of editors. --Brian McNeil /^talk 22:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome external comments on sourcing Cpsoper (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting as many editors as possible to comment. This is a general question on the interpretation of Wikipedia's policy on the 'See also' section of WP articles, not tied to any particular WP article. It seems the rules for 'See also' are not identical to those for the body of WP articles. Does every link in 'See also' have to be supported by a reliable external source that makes a connection between the link and the subject of the article? Or something in the link that mentions the article, or otherwise makes a direct connection with the article? For example, what if the material in a link is almost identical, or very similar, to the material in an article, yet editors are not aware of the existence of a source that mentions both the article and the link in the same source?

One argument is that the absence of a source implies that the connection between the link and the article is based on original research, and thus the link should not be included in 'See also'.

A counter-argument is that if such a source existed, we could have used it in the body of the article, and thus there would be no need to include it in 'See also' (because "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes"). According to this perspective, 'See also' should be as inclusive as possible, and a link should be removed from 'See also' if and only if it creates a possibly libelous connection in a biography of a living person, or if the addition of the link is vandalism. According to this perspective, 'See also' should represent those links that could provide context to the content of the article, and if an editor believes in good faith that the link will provide that context, the link should be available to readers to make that judgement themselves. In other words, according to this view, WP:OR would apply if editors proposed to use the link to support a claim in the body of the article, not if the link is restricted to the 'See also' section and editors make no reference to the link within the body of the article. According to this perspective, if all WP policies applied to 'See also' exactly as they do to the main body of the article, there would not be a need for a separate section called 'See also'. According to this view, WP policies for the main body are designed to, metaphorically speaking, narrow-down, limit and constrict the range of material eligible for inclusion in the main body. This relative narrowing, limitation and constriction may be exactly one of the main reasons for the existence of 'See also'. In this view, 'See also' is designed to open-up the range of material eligible for inclusion, relative to the main body of the article. (However, some limitations on 'See also' still exist, such as restricting it to links to other WP articles.) According to this perspective, while the main body is designed to be relatively more exclusive, 'See also' is designed to be considerably more inclusive, to enable readers to explore deeper and broader, to discover, investigate, examine, travel more widely, wander and delve into, to help readers enhance their knowledge and understanding of the context, scope, breadth and depth of the article.

(This draft RfC reads like it favors one side, if a volunteer would like to modify it to improve neutrality it would be much appreciated.)

Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number (WP:SEEALSO). If there is nothing that would justify inclusion in the body of a more comprehensive article on the subject (i.e. a reliable source making the linkage), existing guidelines seemingly preclude such inclusion. You appear not to be asking how existing guidelines should be interpreted, you are instead apparently proposing that they be changed (your proposal would of necessity also require changes to WP:OR policy, to make it clear that it didn't apply to 'see also', which would allow additions based on contributor's opinions). Please make your proposed changes explicit, and then propose them formally at a more appropriate venue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not proposing they be changed. I'm trying to understand the spirit behind 'See also'. It seems that perhaps your comment may be focused almost exclusively on the letter of WP policies. I'm asking not only about the letter of 'See also', but also going beyond the letter and inquiring about the spirit of this particular WP policy, and, ultimately, to the heart of WP itself (albeit in a limited way). I'm curious to learn of editors' thoughts on the interesting questions that may arise - such as Are there certain (rare or not-so-rare) situations when an editor's opinion, even if not backed by a source, could justify inclusion of a link in 'See also'? From WP:SEEALSO: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." And thanks for taking the time and effort to post a comment. Regards and best wishes, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikipedia articles cover relationships of Afghanistan and diplomatic missions of Afghanistan, Afghanistan is maintaining formal relationships with ONLY developed countries and seems to showing UTTER hatred to Communism and Poverty of South America and Most of Asian countries. However, the fact is, Afghanistan is worse than Vietnam, Laos, Burma, Cambodia, and Cuba. Poorest country neglecting civil-war, drug, discrimination toward women, Poorest country using Democratic mechanism to solidifying Tyranny wants to maintain strong relations with MOST DEVELOPED countries. Is it making sense? Can someone explain about Afghanistan politicians' lame but extremely exclusive demeanor toward underdeveloped countries?

Title says all. since my country lacks institutes cover those languages i want to learn those languages via computer games. as title says, is there any computer games support vietnamese/Turkish/Thai/Indonesian OFFICIALLY?

This question would be better put at this desk where I suggest you use a shorter title and put more text into the text. Britmax (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magda Havas manuscript being added to the intro

Catch2424 is attempting to add the following to the intro: In 2007 Magda Havas, (B.Sc., Ph.D.) from the Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada wrote that laboratory studies of radio frequency radiation as well as epidemiological studies of people who live near cell phone antennas and/or use wireless technology indicate adverse biological effects (including cancers, DNA breaks and more).[3][4][5]

www.magdahavas.org is not a reliable source. Please stop adding this without consensus. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC) From my googling it seems like she has a poor reputation.[6][7] she even collaborates with a guy that makes these bizarre devices to filter "dirty electricity"[8] Bhny

Sorry, BUT It is NOT only her findings. it is all over the net... Also in the EU: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387291/Mobile-phones-wi-fi-banned-schools-theyre-potentially-harmful.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/02/13/toronto-oecta-wifi.html http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/05May/Pages/health-impact-wifi-mobiles-electromagnetic-fields.aspx http://www.wifiinschools.org.uk/ http://www.heartmdinstitute.com/wireless-safety/ban-wifi-schools http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/8514380/Ban-mobile-phones-and-wireless-networks-in-schools-say-European-leaders.html http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110519/00442614333/european-politicians-look-to-ban-wifi-school-children.shtml http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/?page_id=128 http://www.safeinschool.org/2011/01/wi-fi-is-removed-from-schools-and.html enough read? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catch2424 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC) No, that's not enough. At minimum, we require a peer-reviewed journal article. Please do not re-add the material until you obtain consensus here. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Seconded: “All over the net” is not a reason to add something. A health article has to be guided by WP:MEDRS. --papageno (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If none of these resources is a reliable source which source is??? We need help from someone else to decide about this.

For the studio album article This is PiL, two users are involved in a dispute over the review scores. Me, Woovee has been asking the other user LongLivePunkRock (talk) to post his/her opinion on the Talk:This is PiL. No reply, but he/she keeps on reverting. All album wiki articles have a critical reception field that deals with both positive and negative reviews but this user doesn't accept this. Indeed, he/she carries on erasing several negative reviews. Wiki is not a fan site who makes hagiography : wiki has got neutral point of view amongst its policies.Woovee (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we ought to change the article title for sovereign states to reflect the proper, official name; common names should be redirects, not the article title.

Wikipedia desires to attain levels of professionalism equivalent to encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia Britannica; why, then, is this policy not already followed. Perhaps the most egregious example is the article titled United States rather than United States of America. Equally as bad is China (which should refer to NEITHER country in my opinion, but be a separate article entirely.) instead of People's Republic of China. The current standard is both unprofessional and in some cases can be misleading, and as such I believe a change is in order.

I will post a formal argument shortly, but I just wanted to see what people think about this issue. I know that numerous edit wars have been waged over the subject before in the past (Côte d'Ivoire vs. Ivory Coast, United States vs. USA, China vs. People's Republic of China, the list goes on and on), and settling this issue officially would go a long way towards lessening the frequency of these incidents. In that regard, I believe that standardizing in favor of the formal name would go a long way in helping, but nonetheless I believe that the community as a whole would benefit from discussing a potential change here.

My apologies if this has been settled before; I could not find it in the discussion archives. Also, apologies if I've somehow done something wrong with the process...as you can see, I'm new here. Zaldax (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is often a lot of contention and debate as to what the "offical" name of a country actually is. Do we follow the UN's "official" names, the IOC's "official" names, or should we follow some other international standard? No matter what we follow, someone is going to object. On the other hand if we go with whatever "name" is most commonly used in reliable English language sources (ie the current policy) there is rarely much contention or debate as to what the article's title should be. Blueboar (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Commonname is probably the best policy to become familiar with. As far as I'm concerned, it seems to be the consensus precedent that common names are preferable to official names, and I see no reason to overturn that consensus now. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Democratic People's Republic of Korea? United Mexican States? Oriental Republic of Uruguay? And why stop at countries, what about the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations? You need to touch on more than the easy targets of China and the US if you want to suggest we move everything to the official name. --Golbez (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually be in favor of those, too; in my opinion, whatever name a sovereign state uses for itself should be the name listed in an encyclopedia. In any case, it seems that WP:Commonname is well-supported enough that it remains consensus, and I've no problem with that. (Although I still do have an issue with the two examples I mentioned initially.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would we use the English translated name, or stick with it in their native language, since meaning can be lost in translation? This has only been slightly touched on thanks to Cote d'Ivoire, but this would writ it large. What makes United Mexican States more appropriate than Estados Unidos Mexicanos? The point of this is to say, just as "common name" can be ambiguous, so can what to use for the "formal name." --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all, nations tend to issue some English language documents -- if they use the same name for English as their native language, who are we to correct them? If Mexico terms itself Estados Unidos Mexicanos, use that -- if they term themselves United Mexican States (which they do), I'd use that. Cote d'Ivoire is an example of the former (the fact that it currently resides at Ivory Coast is a prime example of this argument) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lead dispute, Which version better represents the topic [1]and is in keeping with Wiki lead policy found on many other articles? Talk page engagement has been ignored.--Inayity (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of just removing what happened, why did you not try to rephrase it? Something like "The 9-11 Truth movement contests the accepted account that..." Also, both of the editors that reverted you have discussed the matter on the talk page, which is hardly ignoring engagement. If anything, you ignored their engagement. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can do that if it briefly sum the issue, why do we need to restate it and waste lead space (succinctly) ? Is something wrong with 9/11, doesn't that and every website around the world tell every living soul what happened? Even the bushmen in South Africa know the "official" accounts. the talk page is clear evidence of what is happening and the quality of the "engagement, or lack thereof" . --Inayity (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE, we don't hide that heliocentricism is fact in the Modern geocentrism article, and the same principle applies here. That Al-Qaeda destroyed the WTC is a fact, not an "official account." The 9-11 Truth movement has failed to understand that. The article must reflect both of those views.

And again, two other editors discussed the matter, which is engagement. If you meant "agreement," (a completely different word), then yes, there was no agreement with you, but there was engagement. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lets just use the talk page as other comments are coming in. We do still have a duty to wiki rules regardless of our orientation.--Inayity (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have a duty to guidelines and policies such as WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE, which say that we do not portray conspiracy theories as equal to known facts. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that a number of Wikipedia editing rules are a result of egregious abuses of editing--No original research, Neutral point of view, verifiability and secondary sources were developed with good reason. But these rules can also be misused and abused. And I have encountered such a situation. When a statement is made that most people would agree with, but that lacks attribution through a specific secondary source it is deleted as "original research". The rule has become--Don't think.

Before, encyclopedias were written only by top professional experts with specific credentials. But there are many people with a deep and abiding interest in a subject, who are experts in their own right, who are knowledgeable, but who aren't heard because they have not jumped through the professional hoops and played the games of power. Wikipedia is a welcome forum for us. And many minds working together through consensus are often better than one.

I recently began editing again after a 2 years hiatus. I was immediately met with two deletions (2 min and 18 min respectively. And the comments I posted were discounted and/or misinterpreted and there seems to be no willingness on the part of the other editor for any discussion. I haven't yet figured out where the other editor is coming from, but he apparently intends to make it impossible for me to post anything.--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)And as you can see from the following, the editor concerned is interfering with my attempts to get comments from another source than him. And he has interfered and deleted part of what I was saying on this page--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC) One of the things he deleted was my comment that this subject's most important secondary sources date back to 1700-2000 years ago some of which are inaccessible to all but specialists in the field. But that over 25 books have been published on the subject in the last 10 years indicating a renewed interest in the subject and a reason for a WP article.--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This issue could be seen as limited to the topic we are treating, but I see it as a larger issue. That WP rules are being taken so rigidly that the original purpose of WP is undermined or destroyed.--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other users that the above post was prompted by the above user attempting to add unsourced original research to an article, while the talk page for an unsourced forum-like discussion of the subject, and then asking what my beef was for reverting the former and discouraging the latter.

In response to the post: Encyclopedias written by experts are nigh impossible to correct, very limited in scope, and take forever to update. Wikipedia, with its rather open format, corrects serious errors almost instantly and minor errors still more quickly than any other encyclopedia, is very broad in scope while being far more in-depth than many professional works, and updates constantly. This is possible because we acknowledge expertise based on a user's academic capabilities (being able to cite secondary or tertiary sources neutrally) rather than they claim to know. If someone cannot cite one book on a subject, they really aren't experts, as far as Wikipedia (or indeed, most of academia) is concerned.

The original purpose of Wikipedia is to have an accurate encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to. This means that we have to use sources, and this means not giving special treatment to anyone (no matter how much they delusionally bloviate about being an expert on a subject while simultaneously and hypocritically denying the possibility of academic recognition of their supposed talents). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret9mary, I did not delete anything you posted on this page, it is incorrect (or outright false) to claim that I did so. Also in response to this, a source that dates back two millenia and is only accessible by specialists is a primary source, not a secondary source. A secondary source would be books by those specialists on that hard-to-access source. If you have 25 books on the subject, you should have presented them earlier. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One idea that gained traction in the village pump is adding a template to company articles alerting editors affiliated with the topic of WP:COI's advice for editors affiliated with the subject and asking editors to look for biased edits.

Our objective is to:

• Alert COIs of WP:COI's advice for "financial COIs" to use {{request edit}} to suggest changes
• Make volunteers more aware that their edits may have a real-world impact on the subject, to encourage editors to be more careful about balance, neutrality, citing sources, etc.
• Encourage more editors to watch the article for bias edits (both to protect companies from unfair edits and to protect articles from bias COI edits)

See the draft at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigNate37/TM/Extant_organization_content_notice

Thoughts? User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 14:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the word "watching" may be unclear to a newcomer. I'd link "watching" to WP:WATCH. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clear up miss information about Charles Wilson Peale the Artest. You have Priscilla Peale as his daughter who was married to Dr.Henry Boteler. The fact is Priscilla was his Granddaughter. Her name was priscilla Robinson Boteler. She was the Daughter of Angelica Robinson. Angelica was Charles Wilson Peales Daughter. She married Alexander Robinson. Priscilla was thier daughter. I am a member of the Boteler Family and can supply proof if you would like.

Sincerely,

Jane Houston

The Info Box Formation section of Bulgaria article, which was in effect since 2006 was changed, with the date of Bulgaria's establishment - 681 AD eliminated from it.

2006 version:

Formation:
- Established Bulgaria 681
- Third Bulgarian State 3 March 1878
- Tsardom of Bulgaria 22 September 1908

2012 version:

 Independence from the Ottoman Empire
 Principality of Bulgaria19 February 1878
 Declaration of Independence 22 September 1908

The users Ceco31,Gligan, Apcbg, ximhua & V3n0M93 disagreed with the removal of the date 681 from the Info box and expressed their opinion on the talk page: Talk:Bulgaria.

A number of sources stating that Bulgaria beings in 681 were was listed, as follows:

Encyclopedia Britanica

Bulgaria, Indiana University, 1987, p. 53

Erik Kooper (2006), The Medieval Chronicle IV, p. 97

R. J. Crampton (2005), A Concise History Of Bulgaria, Cambridge University Press, p. 9

Francisco Rodríguez Adrados (2005), A History of the Greek Language, BRILL, p. 265

M. Avrum Ehrlich (2008), Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora, ABC-CLIO, p. 954

This says that is one of the oldest sovereign states in Europe founded in 681:

Juliet Lodge (2010), The 2009 Elections to the European Parliament, Palgrave MacMillan, p. 60

Also, it was mentioned that Poland, Serbia,Croatia, Czech Republic, Portugal, Spain, Germany among others have a Formation section, which accurately shows the historical dates for those counties. Ximhua (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]