Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 295: Line 295:     
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 05:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
 
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 05:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
: ''Cite a source'', ''Must be verifiable'' and ''No personal opinion'' can be argued to be separate subjects.  However there is a point of view that sees them as a single subject.  Encyclopedic material will usually fulfill all 3 elements.  A main source of editing disagreement at wikipedia has revolved around this mushroom circle.  A personal website, for example, can be cited, can be verified, and might contain '''what appears to be''' a document's replication.  But cited, verified information on a personal website is no more reliable than the owner of the personal website.  People who would quash freedom of religion use this to pieces, it is a big source of difficulty at wikipedia.  The personal website, clambake.org comes to mind.  So let us work at keeping the inclusion bar just a little bit too high, rather than just a little bit too low, okay?  [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
    
==Propose: "Don't copy"==
 
==Propose: "Don't copy"==
343

edits

Navigation menu