4 ms·

Now more than ever, Wikipedia must be publicly verifiable. That means that any claim can be checked by anyone with an Internet connection and a library card. Im

Now more than ever, Wikipedia must be publicly verifiable. That means that any claim can be checked by anyone with an Internet connection and a library card. Imagine if contested articles contained controversial facts on the basis of secret evidence? The editor made the right call.

not2b 5y ago
But if the editors receive proof that a statement article is wrong, but that information can't be published on the Internet for copyright or other reasons, that means it is proven that the source of the information is wrong, so that source should be removed as unreliable at least in this case. If the rules of Wikipedia don't allow unsourced information, they don't prevent removing incorrect information that has been shown to be incorrect. So they could nuke the bad information. If, after that, nothing is left, they can remove the entire article.
- sdoering 5y ago
  Thanks. Exactly my thought on a valid approach. One not taken by this person in this case.
- Jiro 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access... specifically allows the use of sources that are hard to access. The rule here wasn't that it couldn't be used because it was hard to access, but that it couldn't be used because it wasn't published at all. Furthermore, any sane editor would allow use of this information under Ignore All Rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules ), which is specifically there because sometimes the rules don't produce good results.
- Qub3d 5y ago
  The problem is that results in some users with privileged knowledge and other users without. The OP has been using language like "they" to refer to editors as some unified, privileged bloc but that is incorrect, and part of the issue. (If they have found some specific users to be "gatekeeping" content, that is a problem and there exist mechanisms to redress that[0].) Ultimately, if the OP wants "the editors" to see information to add to the article, they will effectively be publishing the information publicly, since anyone can be an editor, and there is no mechanism for protected sources that are available to only some special cadre. That breaks the Wikipedia model -- in article namespace, everyone should be able to review the same source information. The concept here is called "verifiability" for a reason. Wikipedia's strength is that you can ultimately go check and confirm the source. By writing articles from privileged information, Wikipedia effectively becomes a primary source on a subject, which is a big no-no for an encyclopedia in general, and for Wikipedia specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research It can be frustrating, but it is a necessary minimum. As to perceived accuracy, Wikipedia has a General Disclaimer[1] for a reason. If this all makes you less trustful of Wikipedia... good! I can't speak for every wikipedian, but I personally welcome skepticism and encourage users to verify anything they have doubts on. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
- wlonkly 5y ago
  There is no particular group who are "the editors". You are "the editors". So am I, and I have no idea about this situation. That's why articles need publicly-accessible sources. Now, if there's something in the article that is (1) wrong and (2) unsourced, then that should be removed from the article. (And if someone re-adds unsourced material to an article, then there are process to deal with that). But if there are no public sources for information it does not go in the encyclopedia.

not2b 5y ago

But if the editors receive proof that a statement article is wrong, but that information can't be published on the Internet for copyright or other reasons, that means it is proven that the source of the information is wrong, so that source should be removed as unreliable at least in this case. If the rules of Wikipedia don't allow unsourced information, they don't prevent removing incorrect information that has been shown to be incorrect. So they could nuke the bad information. If, after that, nothing is left, they can remove the entire article.

sdoering 5y ago
Thanks. Exactly my thought on a valid approach. One not taken by this person in this case.
Jiro 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access... specifically allows the use of sources that are hard to access. The rule here wasn't that it couldn't be used because it was hard to access, but that it couldn't be used because it wasn't published at all. Furthermore, any sane editor would allow use of this information under Ignore All Rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules ), which is specifically there because sometimes the rules don't produce good results.
Qub3d 5y ago
The problem is that results in some users with privileged knowledge and other users without. The OP has been using language like "they" to refer to editors as some unified, privileged bloc but that is incorrect, and part of the issue. (If they have found some specific users to be "gatekeeping" content, that is a problem and there exist mechanisms to redress that[0].) Ultimately, if the OP wants "the editors" to see information to add to the article, they will effectively be publishing the information publicly, since anyone can be an editor, and there is no mechanism for protected sources that are available to only some special cadre. That breaks the Wikipedia model -- in article namespace, everyone should be able to review the same source information. The concept here is called "verifiability" for a reason. Wikipedia's strength is that you can ultimately go check and confirm the source. By writing articles from privileged information, Wikipedia effectively becomes a primary source on a subject, which is a big no-no for an encyclopedia in general, and for Wikipedia specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research It can be frustrating, but it is a necessary minimum. As to perceived accuracy, Wikipedia has a General Disclaimer[1] for a reason. If this all makes you less trustful of Wikipedia... good! I can't speak for every wikipedian, but I personally welcome skepticism and encourage users to verify anything they have doubts on. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
wlonkly 5y ago
There is no particular group who are "the editors". You are "the editors". So am I, and I have no idea about this situation. That's why articles need publicly-accessible sources. Now, if there's something in the article that is (1) wrong and (2) unsourced, then that should be removed from the article. (And if someone re-adds unsourced material to an article, then there are process to deal with that). But if there are no public sources for information it does not go in the encyclopedia.