Talk:Air conditioner: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Not quite sure what to make of that last edit.. Rearrange talk in what I assume was the intended manner. |
|||
| Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
This document fails all of these tests, and I therefore state that it is not up to other editors to find a better source, that is reversing the onus of proof in the favour of incorrect information. It is up to editors who place the citation to confirm the quality of information and other editors to remove the citation if the information is most likely reliable, or to remove the citation and information if the information is possibly not reliable. This is all very clearly stated on [[WP:V]], particularly in the seciont "Burden of evidence" Namely ''The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material''[[User:User A1|User A1]] ([[User talk:User A1|talk]]) 07:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
This document fails all of these tests, and I therefore state that it is not up to other editors to find a better source, that is reversing the onus of proof in the favour of incorrect information. It is up to editors who place the citation to confirm the quality of information and other editors to remove the citation if the information is most likely reliable, or to remove the citation and information if the information is possibly not reliable. This is all very clearly stated on [[WP:V]], particularly in the seciont "Burden of evidence" Namely ''The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material''[[User:User A1|User A1]] ([[User talk:User A1|talk]]) 07:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
:The bit of [[WP:V]] that's most relevant is probably "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 07:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
:The bit of [[WP:V]] that's most relevant is probably "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." Now, I don't know anything about this handyman site except what I see on the page, but it appears to be published by Best Opportunities Unlimited LLC; I would presume the exercise editorial control over the page contents, lacking an indication to the contrary, and I don't see anything about the information that's particularly suspect, extremist, promotional, rumor based, or whatever. If you object to it as a source, say why clearly. And if you remove a citation, why not either put a citation needed tag, or remove the material it supported if you're questioning it, or even better, be constructive and add an actual better source? You get to choose how you want to contribute, but simply removing a source is not a very good choice. Your interpretation of the burden of proof section as suggesting "other editors to remove the citation if the information is most likely reliable" is a new one I've never seen before and can't imagine the logic of. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 07:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
| ⚫ | |||
::I cannot see where we are going to agree on this, but so far we are having a spirited discussion! There is no evidence of editorial oversight on that page, one must therefore assume there is no verifiable editorial oversight -- verifiability requires the ability to check and verify. I am of the opinion that the mere existence of a citation is in essence the editors whom have maintain these pages, such as your and myself, agreeing that the citation satisfies certain quality constraints. The logic is that one must maintain citation quality, or otherwise anyone could add citations of dubious quality, and demand that the be left in place. |
::I cannot see where we are going to agree on this, but so far we are having a spirited discussion! There is no evidence of editorial oversight on that page, one must therefore assume there is no verifiable editorial oversight -- verifiability requires the ability to check and verify. I am of the opinion that the mere existence of a citation is in essence the editors whom have maintain these pages, such as your and myself, agreeing that the citation satisfies certain quality constraints. The logic is that one must maintain citation quality, or otherwise anyone could add citations of dubious quality, and demand that the be left in place. |
||
| Line 220: | Line 218: | ||
Anyway, must dash. [[User:User A1|User A1]] ([[User talk:User A1|talk]]) 08:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
Anyway, must dash. [[User:User A1|User A1]] ([[User talk:User A1|talk]]) 08:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
| ⚫ | |||
The sentence, quoted again I agree that adding a fact tag is a good idea, however. [[User:User A1|User A1]] ([[User talk:User A1|talk]]) 08:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Auto archival? == |
== Auto archival? == |
||