Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC/Comments: Difference between revisions
Put views in {{quotation}} boxes so that they are more visible |
Add Pesky's question |
||
Line 253: | Line 253: | ||
=====Neutral on view 10===== |
=====Neutral on view 10===== |
||
# |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC#top|Return to top]] |
|||
====View 11==== |
|||
{{quotation|"I think that it is important that our policies should be immediately and unambiguously clear to all our editors, including those for whom English is a second language, and those who are on the [[WP:AUTIE|Autism spectrum]]. Any statement which may cause confusion, or a "jolt" to the thinking processes, should be clarified with a full explanation in order to avoid misinterpretation and / or mistakes in applying policy which cause avoidable stress and argument, and unnecessarily waste editors' time and resources."}} |
|||
[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC/Comments|action=edit§ion=T-63}} '''Click here to edit this section'''] |
|||
=====Endorse view 11===== |
|||
# |
|||
=====Oppose view 11===== |
|||
# |
|||
=====Neutral on view 11===== |
|||
# |
# |
||
Revision as of 06:05, 27 June 2012
Comments
Option A — Current version, with "verifiability, and not truth"
Click here to edit this section
Support Option A
Support Option A with revisions
Oppose Option A
Option B — Recent past version, with "verifiability, not truth"
Click here to edit this section
Support Option B
Support Option B with revisions
Oppose Option B
Option C — "Verifiability, not truth" with added clarification
Click here to edit this section
Support Option C
Support Option C with revisions
Oppose Option C
Option D — New wording about perceived truth, verifiability
Click here to edit this section
Support Option D
Support Option D with revisions
Oppose Option D
Option E — About verifiability, no mention of "truth"
Click here to edit this section
Support Option E
Support Option E with revisions
Oppose Option E
General views about WP:V and its lede
Please indicate whether you endorse, oppose, or are neutral about each of the following views. Please provide informative comments. You may also discuss comments, using the "#:" notation.
View 1
"I think the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' needs to be part of the lede."
Click here to edit this section
Endorse view 1
Oppose view 1
Neutral on view 1
View 2
"I think the word 'threshold' needs to be part of the lede."
Click here to edit this section
Endorse view 2
Oppose view 2
Neutral on view 2
View 3
"I don't think the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' needs to be in the lede itself, but this phrase should be mentioned elsewhere on the policy page."
Click here to edit this section
Endorse view 3
Oppose view 3
Neutral on view 3
View 4
"I don't see any need for the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' to be mentioned on the policy page."
Click here to edit this section
Endorse view 4
Oppose view 4
Neutral on view 4
View 5
"I would like the lede to say more than it currently does about the distinction between perceived truth and verifiability."
Click here to edit this section
Endorse view 5
Oppose view 5
Neutral on view 5
View 6
"If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', then I would like it to clarify that this phrase mean only that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion."
Click here to edit this section
Endorse view 6
Oppose view 6
Neutral on view 6
View 7
"If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', then I would like it to explain that this means WP's content is determined by previously published information, rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors."
Click here to edit this section
Endorse view 7
Oppose view 7
Neutral on view 7
View 8
"I would like the lede to mention 'verifiable but inaccurate' material."
Click here to edit this section
Endorse view 8
Oppose view 8
Neutral on view 8
View 9
"I would like the lede to be just about verifiability, and I don't think it needs to mention 'truth' at all."
Click here to edit this section
Endorse view 9
Oppose view 9
Neutral on view 9
View 10
"I support a large-scale restructuring/rationalisation/simplification of Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:ATT."
Click here to edit this section
Endorse view 10
Oppose view 10
Neutral on view 10
View 11
"I think that it is important that our policies should be immediately and unambiguously clear to all our editors, including those for whom English is a second language, and those who are on the Autism spectrum. Any statement which may cause confusion, or a "jolt" to the thinking processes, should be clarified with a full explanation in order to avoid misinterpretation and / or mistakes in applying policy which cause avoidable stress and argument, and unnecessarily waste editors' time and resources."
Click here to edit this section