Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC/Comments: Difference between revisions

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

Return to top

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

Return to top

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

Return to top

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

Return to top

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

Return to top

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

Return to top

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

Return to top

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

Return to top

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

Return to top

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

Return to top

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."

@@ Line 253: / Line 253: @@
 =====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&section=T-63}} '''Click here to edit this section''']
+=====Endorse view 11=====
+#
+=====Oppose view 11=====
+#
+=====Neutral on view 11=====
 #