WikiFur talk:Accuracy dispute

I've made a few notes on this page  in red  to show some thoughts I have. I've also formatted the page based on the layout of Speedy deletion since it helps break up the page. --Nidonocu - talk 16:29, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Reviving Discussion
Wow. This has sat here for quite a while without discussion or change. I think some of the questions posed here now are:
 * Is this policy necessary?
 * Do we need to create WikiFur versions of Wikipedia policy articles such as Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources, or are their policies similar enough to ours that we can just point to them?

As for the final question on the page, I don't think we need to cite Wikipedia on policy pages unlpess doing so is required by the GFDL.--Duncan da Husky 14:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We really can't use Wikipedia's policies for WikiFur as its another case where they are too strict for the content WikiFur provides. Taking in account a lot of it is based on fictional or fantasy pieces of work, having a source to cite isn't always possible (in particular when detailing about groups that no longer exist, websites go offline and hosted abandoned groups are eventually purged).
 * To a certain extent, WikiFur has to lean slightly more on the policy of Assume good faith (do we have our own simple version of this page somewhere?) and continuing from that, that an article's content is Innocent until proven guilty. So an article needs to remain until a time where someone else can really confirm it or deny it.
 * This however isn't always true though as sometimes the likeliness of existence or 'scope' of something can be deemed incorrect without needing to really prove it either way beyond consensus. I can't link exactly, but I remember an article about a Term that suggested that the phrase was widely used by the fandom. No other contributor or administrator beyond the original author however had heard of it before so this was deemed unlikely and the article was reworded to just 'some people'. --Nidonocu - talk [[Image:Trans 168.png|16px|Nidonocu]] 15:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't have verifiability policies unless particularly challeneged by someone to prove that something is true or not (in which case they often get more than they bargain for). We do not require people to cite their sources, though they are welcome to do so if they wish. Although this has come up a few times we don't really have a firm policy on it as yet - it's been decided on a case by case basis. -- 23:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We are trying to help furries by getting rid of trolls the only way possible is it so bad? do you enjoy getting trolled? no one does this article is for helpful information to a place that is abundant with furries and i intend to take this further cause i am sick of people who hate and criticize! (elementemblem)

Whatabout 'citations' by source of info, not just publication?
It seems to me that, as others have said, verifiability in Wikipedia's sense is unworkable here as an overall requirement. And unless I've underestimated the number of coherent contributors, I have serious doubts about consensus forming being a sufficient mechanism here even if that's what we'd like to see. GR's case-by-case sounds to me like it essentially means the entire burden of verifiability rests on his, and perhaps a few other administrators', shoulders. I don't think that's necessarily a doomed approach, but I think it has issues, not the least of which are the several reasons it might be undesirable to have wikifur be, or appear to be, essentially something that a pawfull of people vouch for. I wouldn't want to be Green, et al, in this case.

Perhaps, rather than a strict requirement of citation of things published, an explicit categorization that shows how the information is obtained, whether it is 1) verifiable from reliable published sources, 2) something the author personally claims to have direct experience of, 3) something the author asserts is authorotative because it derives from a consensus of specifically identified contributors... ? This does at least superficially answer the natural question "Sez who?" It also shields GR and others from anybody claiming they've taken autocratic control of content, except if they do so. --Furthling 03:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to flesh out the above a little.:


 * I think wikifur would benefit from some kind of systematic way of categorizing content for HOW it was verified, both internal and external, that recognizes all three of the following:


 * 1. Whether there are reliable publications (peer reviwed, widely regarded, or known to be subject to careful, credible editorial control) that back up some assertion. (The wikipedia standard.)


 * 2. Whether the subject, the subject's owner/creator, or any witness to the *entire* event or phenomenon, agrees with the assertion. (The witness stanard.)


 * 3. whether there is a "consensus" among "authorities:" (the "qualified consensus" standard.)
 * a) Consensus is more strictly defined as an agreement among at least 2 people expressing a view OR 67% of all persons who have expressed a view, WHICHEVER is GREATER.
 * b) authorities are ONLY those persons who are regular, good-faith contributors to wikifur, and or people with a user page that identifies them as an authority on the topic in question, narrowly construed. (The significance of regular contributors as authorities rests in their capacity for checking things by inference and against broad knowledge, combined with a higher expectation of good faith. This is contrary to any assumption of good faith policy.)


 * These three criteria, taken together, IMO present a formalized alternative to Wikipedia's reliance (solely) on equal presentation of all views published by sufficiently popular sources, suitable to Wikifur.


 * IN PRACTICE
 * Forms of verification would refer either to the published source, the name of the asserting author or witness, and/or the names of the authorities who've agreed upon it.


 * Where NONE of these these criteria are met, the assertion would merit either tagging with "no verification," or removal, at editors discretion (with the understanding that there would be a LONG adjustment process for wikifur where it would be inappropriate to remove information before a lot of new attention was brought to it.)


 * Where ONLY ONE of these criteria are met AND IF it is reasonable to suppose that there could be verification in one of the other two categories, tagging with "Citation Needed," "Witness Needed," or "Consensus Needed."


 * This standard would include assertions even where one of or more of the forms of verification contradicts it. Instead of contradictory verification leading to the exclusion of an assertion (assuming the assertion has at least one form of verification), the contradicted assertion should be tagged for needing the kind of verification in question, AND a seperate statement made with its supporting verification. This might lead to more stated points of view, but effectively increases the readily available salient information since it identifies the differing sources:


 * EXAMPLE 1
 * "Furthling is regarded [1] as an advanced wikifur user.{consensus needed} This is strongly disputed. [2]"


 * [1] Witness: Furthling
 * [2] Consensus: GreenReaper, SpazKitty, Sine.


 * EXAMPLE 2
 * "Court records [1] reflect Furthling got a parking ticket on the 4th of July 2007 for parking illegally. {witness needed}{consensus needed} The Dayton Ironclaw Group[2], who are familiar with Furthling, asserts that he has never driven a car and always sleeps through the 4th of July holiday. {witness needed}{citation needed} Furthling [3] claims he drove and parked his car on the 4th of July 2007 but did not recieve a parking ticket. {citation needed}{consensus needed}."


 * [1] Citation: Franklin County Bureau of Motor Vehicles Website
 * [2] Consensus: Kwon, Whotshoppord, Ocefox.
 * [3] Witness: Furthling

--Furthling 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)