Policy Talk:Verifiability

Policy ready for consensus review

I ask for Editors of BTW to read through and either indicate support for this policy candidate or address your concerns here. Lack of interest within five days will be recognized as a consensus for support. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not supporting this as it is. I think the policy does not reflect well enough that we are dealing with a fictional universe. Whatever is stated with regards to the BT universe must have a source somewhere. And this in turn means "Verifiability" greatly overlaps with Policy:Canon (that I once again painfully regret I haven't finished yet), and I think ultimately Policy:Canon will include the entire Policy:Verifiability. (There is some real-world content regarding the franchise and real-world persons, too, but that is really a minor part of BTW.) Very tight on time these days though, so I can't promise I will revisit this soon. Frabby 12:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, took a re-read of your above again a few hours later and I see you're not suggesting /not/ having the intent of the policy, but just including it within the canon policy. However, I'd like to point out that the two are very different (but related) things (which hit home with me as I re-wrote it over the last few days), which is why I chose to keep them apart. The presumption is that we must be able to point towards the original source, both so that editors may improve upon the context & content of the article and so that readers have the faith that the material is, well, true. Its intent is not purely one of canonicity.

Frabby, without this policy, I'd be compelled to /not/ change the major addition to the Clan Wolverine article (if I had not been able to intuit the fanon nature of the addition thru the poster's remarks) because, in my ignorance of the Dark Ages (as well as the games) I would not be able to disprove the truth of the material, and without comment from the poster, could not revert it from the article. In fact, as admin, I'd have to take issue with any Editor that /did/ attempt to remove it, since they couldn't prove it didn't happen, either. By requiring citations -especially for exceptional material- it gives us the option to remove that which interested parties can (or will) not verify.

My recommendation -especially because of the type of events I think we're starting to see- is to put forth this policy as soon as possible and wrap it up into the canon policy if and when the argument can be made to do so. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think this policy is something to point when people submit dubious, uncited edits. Perhaps they are legitimate, but they are not supported. This should also keep out speculation and other such things that may creep in.

I do think this is separate from the canon policy. While that policy, in essence, categorizes sources, verifiability insists that editors use sources; any will do. Well done, Revanche. --Scaletail 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but it is really a BTW-ization of the same WP policy. However, I stand by it as a functional policy well-suited for the type of material and activity we have here.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish to clarify the statement about 'lack of interest': that came across rather harsh, which was unintended. I really was remarking on getting people involved in the process of developing the site, whether they hold editorships, adminships or are just visitors. No slam was intended at those who don't take part in the process. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)