Wikipedia talk:Consistency proposal

This is not a vote.

An unnecessary constraint. The idea of NPOV allows for statements of fact which are opposed by certain schools of thought, which ought to be mentioned, but which would be deleted on the ground of consistency. Thus it should be possible to allow for other possibilities in an article, as noted in Wikipedia:Good Article etc., which provide guidance to the editorship. As an example, flat earth is a viewpoint which can be mentioned in the earth article, without worry about adherence to consistency, when in fact the marketplace of ideas has already voted about the flatness of earth. --Ancheta Wis 20:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider different opinions to be inconsistencies. The fact that two different groups of people say two different things is not logically contradictory. Samohyl Jan 07:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is impractical. This would require you, before improving a particular article, to improve all the related articles as well. Because even if you source the article you're working on, if it doesn't agree with another Wikipedia article it can be changed. Consistency would be at the expense of accuracy (as with your revert). An article should be able to stand alone. Trebor 22:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this idea is already implicit. I don't think anyone is arguing that there should be contradictory facts in different articles. If someone is improving one article, they will probably want to go out into other articles and improve them as well. However, you can't create a rule that requires one improvement to be combined with another. Being consistent is already a part of wikipedia philosophy. This might make a good essay, to remind people of the importance of consistency and improving articles in groups, not just individually, but as some sort of guideline or policy, it doesn't make sense. Phidauex 23:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think you and Trebor are right, to require it would be impractical. I now agree that it is not a good idea to have it as a policy. Samohyl Jan 07:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this. While I'm generally a big fan of consistency for general scientific theory, encyclopedia articles are more like separate stories. Individual stories have consistency--truth relative to them. Taken together, however, they are a jumble of purported facts that don't really have much to do with each other. Trying to make an encyclopedia consistent would be like trying to merge the entire fiction section of your local library into one story.SFinside 04:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this after modifications. The situation is: what to do when two articles (primary and secondary) contradict each other? Answer: a) If secondary has no source, either remove or add source and proceed to b. b) if secondary has source and primary doesn't, change primary (sourcing trumps primaryness) BUT add comment to wikitext in primary which references secondary. c) if both have source, use judgement on source reliability to do a or b, or include both points of view in primary. Either way, add comment to wikitext in primary. Generally, comments are helpful.--Homunq 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]