Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Workshop
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Verifiability/Workshop page. |
|
- This page is a supplement to the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy page, where drafts, or draft edits may be carried out.
- Be welcoming.
- Be bold.
- Prior versions of pages are saved.
- Edits may be mercilessly.... edited.
Convenience links
- conduct policies
Content of workshop 19 February 2012
[edit]- All this material has been carried over from wt:verifiability, most of the drafts from the talk page going back to 2 February are included, all on one page. Check it out. NewbyG ( talk) 18:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Observe talk page guidelines and policies
[edit]DO : Comment on edits (diffs), and not on contributors (editors)
- The threshold issue will be addressed, of course. If this particular suggested edit is made and no one reverts it, it would be the basis of a new consensus, based on compromise.
DO NOT KNOW : ???
- My position is well summed up in two of Jimbo's bons mots: (1) "We only want true things in our encyclopaedia, and we want to verify them"; and (2) "We are not transcription monkeys". In other words, I think that in many cases editors can tell the difference between truth and falsehood, and I also think that where we can, we should. I think can decide which is which on the basis of good faith talk page discussion. And I think we have a basic duty to our readers not to lie to them if we can avoid it.
I also think that it should be possible to remove sourced but untrue content. In the case of a BLP this would include sourced but suspected untrue content (such as criminal allegations that have yet to be decided by a court, for example) if editors come to a good faith consensus that the said material should be removed.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC) -JIMBONING ?/!!
DO NOT : make personal attacks, or disruptive posts
- one
- , I also don't agree with you when you describe "the founding purpose of Wikipedia" because the de facto founder of Wikipedia, the guy who can tell you what its founding purpose really was back in those days, has been quite clear -JIMBONING
- three
Good example
[edit]20 Adding Shortcut
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
- WP:PROVEIT should be included as a shortcut to this page's section ==Burden of evidence==Curb Chain (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Err, it's already there.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the shortcut already points to the section... but I think Curb is requesting that it actually be added to the little list of shortcuts that in the little box that accompanies the section. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Those shortcut boxes shouldn't have a comprehensive list of shortcuts. I suggest replacing WP:UNSOURCED with WP:PROVEIT as the latter has many more uses. — Bility (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just did a quick check on the usage for all three:
Shortcut Links (approximate) Views (last 30 days) WP:BURDEN 4000 1526 WP:UNSOURCED 200 1000 WP:PROVEIT 2000 208
- I can't see a clear case for switching the links so I'll remove {{editprotected}} for now. If you come to an agreement about this then by all means add it back. Tra (Talk) 06:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit]
Notes and essays on civility
[edit]- Be welcoming. Be civil. On this page, and every page.
Notes and essays on consensus
[edit]- Consensus is sensed when everyone is happy and shuts up.
- Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot is cool.
- Wikipedia:Dispute resolution == That was real quick, where's my diff?
- Wikipedia:Editing policy
- Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practices