curprev05:4205:42, 17 June 2024 Dominic Mayerstalkcontribs 41,153 bytes−9 →Due and undue weight: Of course, he was talking about the sources, not the editors. That is so obvious from the context, but fine, we can add "sources". It is obviously exactly what he meant. But, reliability is associated with ways to reject sources that were not considered at the time. If the argument is only a possible confusion with editors, then reliability is not at all needed.Tag: Reverted
curprev03:3603:36, 17 June 2024 Mathglottalkcontribs 41,180 bytes+20 Undid revision 1226459334byDominic Mayers. In Wales's 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list, it is clear that he was talking about reliable sources and not about Wikipedia editors. The example concerns a physics question, and is about what "mainstream physics texts" and the "majority of prominent physicists" (i.e. RSes) say about the question, and a view "held by an extremely small minority"... "doesn't belong in Wikipedia".Tags: UndoReverted
2 June 2024
curprev04:5704:57, 2 June 2024 Dustfreeworldtalkcontribs 41,160 bytes+2 →Due and undue weight: dummy edit and apologies. What I’ve said is probably incorrect and it seems that a previous substantial edit is also a direct quote from Jimbo Wales (and not in the editor’s own words as I said). Thanks.Tag: Reverted
curprev16:0916:09, 1 June 2024 Dustfreeworldtalkcontribs 41,142 bytes−16 Self-revert. I didn’t notice there’s a discussion on talk until someone pinged me just now (this page wasn’t on my watchlist). I want to say that the green emphasis was added because in another discussion a user has misinterpreted the policy by citing what Jimbo said. It’s a long story but I don’t think I’m able to explain it clearly. Anyway I don’t want anymore drama so I’m self-reverting. Thanks everyone for watching...Tag: Undo
curprev07:2407:24, 1 June 2024 Dustfreeworldtalkcontribs 41,142 bytes−354 It seems to me that substantial change was made to the policy by another editor using their own words. I’m not sure it’s what Jimbo Wales’ original statement means. I’m restoring the page to the last stable version (revision 1224068956). Please read this too. Thanks.Tag: Manual revert
31 May 2024
curprev12:1412:14, 31 May 2024 Dominic Mayerstalkcontribs 41,496 bytes+78 →Due and undue weight: This part of Jimmy Wales original statement is fundamental to make clear the link with the fundamental notion of NPOV. In contrast, "reliable sources" can even be used to mean the opposite of NPOV as when people use "reliable" to mean "has a non biased point of view" and this incorrect use of "reliable" happens very often.Tag: Reverted
curprev12:0012:00, 31 May 2024 Dominic Mayerstalkcontribs 41,418 bytes−13 →Due and undue weight: The "scientific" is misleading when we do not have the historical context, which was a scientific OR. The general principle is not about scientific knowledge only. This historical context was added as footnote, but this is not sufficient.Tags: Manual revertReverted
curprev17:4717:47, 3 May 2024 Dominic Mayerstalkcontribs 41,095 bytes−165 Undid revision 1222065949byValjean (talk) The intention is not bad, but the formulation might be confusing. In a very important way, neutrality means that Wikipedia takes no POV: it does not support any POV. It only describes them by putting them in perspective, providing the arguments without taking side, etc.Tag: Undo
curprev17:4117:41, 3 May 2024 Valjeantalkcontribs 41,260 bytes+165 It is important to provide a delimitation immediately. This will prevent a large portion of the misunderstandings about NPOV.Tag: Reverted