Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 9

News reports
Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). (see What Wikipedia is not). Sci guy 03:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Verifiability
Fact checking is time consuming, economically costly, and not particularly rewarding. It is unfair to make later editors dig for sources, particularly when the initial content is questionable. Those who write articles likely to be deemed in need of fact checking, for whatever reason, should expect to assist by providing references, ideally when the article is first written. Because of this, it's important to make it easy to verify the accuracy and neutrality of your content. Citing your sources is an important part of this, but not the only factor. Another good rule of thumb is to be specific (and avoid weasel words). For example:


 * A human rights spokesman said that the incident was part of a wider pattern of violence in the region

This is difficult to verify, because it's hard to know where to start. Many spokespeople may have commented about the incident on many dates and on many occasions, and it's unreasonable to expect someone to check all these statements looking for the one that matches. A better phrasing would be:


 * Eliza Twisk, of Amnesty International, described the situation in an interview with Channel 4 news on July 8 2000, saying that "This is all part of a growing trend in Europe of violent protest and equally violent response".

This is easy to verify: one could contact Eliza Twisk, or Channel 4, or Amnesty International. As the exact quote is given, rather than a paraphrase, this can be fed into various search engines. Finally, a URL of a transcript is given.

quoted from Verifiability Sci guy 04:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Raul provided a source. What is your point? Rhobite 05:04, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is generally considered that the best Wikipedia articles should consult and cite the best and most reliable references available for the subject. Those may include books or peer reviewed journal articles. quoted from How to write a great article Sci guy 12:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Or we could randomly pick and choose words from certain CDC reports to support our pet theories, make wild claims like saying AIDS is totally confined to homosexuals and injection drug users in the US. Done talking with you. News reports stay in the article, period. Rhobite 16:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Rhobite, please case being inflammitory. If you are not willing to discuss and talk, you are going to end up breaching Good Faith, general civility as well as fail to help get us to NPOV.--Tznkai 16:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How is it good faith for you to just chop out a section of the article? Do you realize you reverted to the denialist version of the article yourself? Rhobite 16:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what version I ended up reverting to. With the constant back and forth, myself and other readers will have no idea whos right and whos wrong, whats denialist what isn't. Also, "look who's talking" is a common fallacy and ignores the fact that the point is still valid.--Tznkai 16:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)