Talk:Credibility/Archives/2013

Stub
Re STUB. This is another article that would do honor to the German Wikipedia. I can not understand why anyone would want to derogate it by calling it a "stub". I, at least, derived an immense amount of knowledge from it, beginning with the crystal clear definition and ending with all the pertinent information on the Native American music scene. I hope that it does not sound too immodest if I say that now at last I know not only what credibility is but also what it is all about. Most of all, of course, I have managed to profit from that groundbreaking Paper presented at the SAA Convention of 1961 by the famous authors and eminent scholars David K. Berlo and James B. Lemert mentioned in the article, which I read with great interest and, if I may say so, even greater pleasure. If I think of all the boring and irrelevant stuff that we all had to endure on the subject of Credibility in relation foremost to Military History, War Games, Game Theory, Strategy and so on, the Factor Analytic Study of the Dimensions of Source Credibility comes as a refreshing spring rain. It cannot be recommended more warmly. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 19:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not put on the stub templates, but I do want to clarify something. Being a "stub" is not a bad thing or a good thing; you seem to think that being labeled a stub is bad for an article.  This is an incorrect interpretation of the label.  Being labeled a stub means that someone believes there isn't quite enough information to be considered a full stand-alone article; that belief is very subjective for articles that are not covered by WikiProjects with content guidelines. User:Ceyockey 02:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * After looking at the history of the article, I've removed the stub templates; the article was born a stub and has grown since then. The second stub template was likely added as a clarifying add-on, the original stub label serving as an attractor. User:Ceyockey 02:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Re MODERN USAGE. Thank you for informing me on the correct up-to-date interpretation of the term "stub". For me the word has always had a somewhat negative sound. Derived from the Latin stipula, later stupula, as you certainly know, it has in German and English acquired various meanings (Stoppel, Stummel, Stumpf, stump, stub etc) all denoting something insignificant, dead, unable to develop or grow. If in modern usage (and who else but the WP shall determine this) something can now be born as a stub, as you say, and then go on to grow (bringing to mind the "dry bones" of the bible), then all the better. Language is and should be a living thing. Far be it from me to cast my lot with the people who have nothing better to do than fight futile rear guard actions against progress. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say "usage in Wikipedia" rather than "modern usage"; I cannot speak to usage outside of Wikipedia. User:Ceyockey 19:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Re USAGE IN WIKIPEDIA. Your answer seems to suggest that "usage in Wikipedia" can or should not change even if it is in conflict with "usage outside of Wikipedia". This can only mean that the latter will have to adapt to the former to resolve conflict. In other words, today's usage in Wikipedia is tomorrow's usage period. So why should we not already now denote it as "modern usage"? --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

References vs. Sources
The use of "Sources" as the section name is not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. "References" is the generally accepted usage. However, I will not get into what would obviously become an edit war with User:Hyacinth over this but will leave it in its "sources" state. User:Ceyockey 16:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Practice is that references are uncited and sources are cited. Policy or style guidelines have changed over time. Hyacinth 08:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please point me at the wikipedia-space article under which this guideline falls. User:Ceyockey 19:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone asked for comments here. The "References" section includes any book, article, document, or website that has been used as a source in the article. "Further reading" or "External links" is a section for any books, article etc relevant to the subject, but not actually used as sources. This is a well accepted practice throughout Wikipedia.

There are some editors (myself included) who would like to see the "references" section called "sources" instead, just to make it even clearer, but the "further reading" section should not be called "references" under any circumstances, because that would be very misleading. See WP:CITE for more information. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's called "Sources" or "References", I think it's perfectly understandable either way. Why is there a concern about mis-labeling? Elonka 01:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * To my mind, "References" implies that one has used all of them in the preparation of the article; "Sources" implies that these are simply sources of information that readers can pursue for further information. Maybe I'm wrong about this.  Badagnani 01:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * to User:Elonka It's a minor matter of consistency; the notion was floated above that there had been a sea change in how the terms "References" and "Sources" was being used in Wikipedia and I was concerned myself about using the right term for consistency because I add references to articles with some frequency. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Credibility vs. Street Cred
To me it seems that the two types of credibility mentioned are considerably different; in my mind, they are different enough to merit separate articles if it wasn't for the fact that little can be said about either separately. It was mentioned above that this article has been considered a stub; in its current state, to me, it appears to be two stubs stuck together in one article for convenience. J-Deeks 04:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition
I think credibility = quality + consistency in its shortest form. unknown 10:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article
I believe credibility with respect to its believability is greatly dependent upon "a statement, action, or source, adn the propensity of the observer to believe that statement...," but I also believe there are other factors, such as artistic proofs, the ethos and pathos found within the text and imagery of the art. The definition doesn't seem to address aspects of ethos and pathos within works of communication. It is almost as if "Prominence-Interpretation Theory" is focused solely on the logos of a textually-based statement, the author's own ethos, and the author's choice of emotional appeals. If you continue in this direction, then credibilty you seem to be defining is reduced to the how effective a persuasive element is to a limited audience, such as how a tricky lawyer can subdue a lesser skilled attorney, one unskilled in the art of using and detecting fallacious arguments and appeals. Hence, "Prominence-Interpretation Theory," as you are developing the definition seems more a term to be rated more for winning acts of persuasion than for defining persuasion as an art in perfect balance with rhetorical criteria (artistic ethos (nonfallacious ethos), artistic pathos (nonfallacious pathos), logos (clear and factual thinking). If what I have said makes sense, then I would definately reword your definition to include such traits as artistic ethos and pathos (uses of authority and emotion to hold argumentative and explanatory statements together to give them a sense of wholeness or artful expression). In this sense, the clutter of inartistic ethos and pathos is left to the audience to measure about the author and audience beforehand.

Fantastic!
I'm sorry, but I'm just amused that the article on credibility on Wikipedia is barely more than a stub. I love this place sometimes. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 07:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Institutional credibility
There is a particular form of credibility known as institutional credibility that comes up when discussing the relationship between social institutions and the people in society. For instance, this notion specifically comes up when talking about the social and cultural trust that people may or may not give to the Roman Catholic Church. The ongoing question that arose from Gaudium et Spes is : how can the Church be credible in a secular world ? ADM (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed from article
I deleted "Unofficially created by James Strudwick within the urban construct of his mind during autumn 1997. " from the "Street Cred" section as this was obviously not valid and cited itself as the source.