User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Implementation of Policies

This page was created as part of the mediation process for the Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The page is specifically devoted to discussion of implementing Wikipedia policies on the Sathya Sai Baba and related articles.

Editors May Remove Inadequately Sources Material
The Wikipedia policy Verifiablility states:
 * Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
 * Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. (emphasis added by BostonMA)

It takes time to add new material to an article. It may not be possible to immediately provide substitute material for material which is removed because it is inadequately sourced. This may leave an article in a state which is rough, awkward or otherwise lacking. The issue is raised whether editors may remove inadequately sourced material if it appears to bring detriment to the article.

The mediator notes that the Verifiability Policy also states:
 * The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

It is the mediators opinion, that where consensus exists that material is inadequately sourced according to Wikipedia policy, that any editor may remove such material, even if other editors believe this will adversely affect the quality of the article, and even if it is estimated that considerable time will be required to restore the quality of the article.

Please express your agreement or disagreement with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. --BostonMA 20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Andries: If this means that editors can remove information immediately that is not perfectly sourced then I disagree. The reason is that very little information in any Wikipedia article is perfectly sourced. If it does not come close to fulfilling Wikipedia policies one week 48 hours after sources have been requested on the talk page then I think that the information can be removed. Andries 20:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * SSS108: I Agree. SSS108 02:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thaumaturgic: Agreed Thaumaturgic 05:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

48 Hour Notice for Removing Inadequately Sourced Material
Wikipedia articles contain a significant amount of material for which there is no source mentioned either within the article itself or within the talk pages. Editors have a right to remove such material. However, it is good practice and courteous to discuss changes to articles in the article talk pages, and to allow adequate time for editors to respond to proposed changes.

The mediator believes that 48 hours is generally a reasonable amount of advanced notice to give to editors for proposed deletions of inadequately sourced material. It is possible that sources for a statement may be discovered after a 48 hour period. However, if an appropriate source is discovered after the 48 hour period, then the deleted material may be restored. Remember that on Wikipedia, edits are not irreversible. In the mediator's opinion, courtesy to other editors does not require more than 48 hours notice.

Please express your agreement or disagreement with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. --BostonMA 21:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Andries: Agreed Andries 08:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * SSS108: I agree. SSS108 02:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thaumaturgic: Agreed Thaumaturgic 05:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

48 Hour Notice for Reversion of Changes
Opinion of mediator: It is a courtesy to other editors to give notice before making edits which may be contentious. If an editor has given adequate notice (for example 48 hours) of a proposed change, and that change has not been contested within the 48 hours, then the making of that edit should not be considered disruptive. An editor, however, does not forfeit the right to make future edits, including reversions, merely because that editor failed to respond within the given time frame. Immediate reversions of edits, especially when advance notice has been given for those edits, and timely objections have not been made, may reduce the level of cooperative spirit among editors. The mediator therefore proposes the following.

It is proposed that if Then no editor (except the editor who made the change) should revert the change in whole or in part without first giving 48 hours advance notice of the intent to revert, and an explanation for the reasons for the revert.
 * 1) An editor has given 48 hours notice of a proposed change an article,
 * 2) The notice includes an explanation justifying the change,
 * 3) The notice period has expired and the change has been made as an edit to the article, and
 * 4) No objection was raised to the justification for the change before the change was made

Please state your willingness or unwillingness to abide by this proposal. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. --BostonMA 18:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Andries: I have to think about this proposal, but I already want to state that this proposal is unusual for Wikipedia, in contrast to the accepted proposal of deleting unsourced material within 48 hours if given prior notice. Andries 20:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I only agree with this proposal for issues that have not been discussed before and only for SSB related disputes. I do not want to re-discuss issues. For example, I did not consider it necessary to reply to SSS108's new concern about the Trouw reference, because I thought I had already discuessed this. Andries 12:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * SSS108: I agree. SSS108 talk-email 18:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, I am unwilling to follow this agreement unless Andries agrees to it. SSS108 talk-email 23:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Noted. --BostonMA 00:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

To avoid further misunderstanding the following. When I have stated once that I disagree with SSS108 and explained why then I find further arguments by SSS108 unconvincing unless I state otherwise: I do not have to state again and again that I do not agree with SSS108 and provide extensive explanations within 48 hours. Often I do not have the time and energy to go into extensive discussions within 48 hours. Andries 07:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And please understand that this agreed upon proposal states change in singular, not changes. Of course when there are many proposed changes in a short time then 48 hours is not enough. Andries 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus for Reputable Sources
According to the Wikipedia policy No Original Research, only material which has been published by a reputable source ought to be included in Wikipedia articles. A number of tests for determining whether a source may be considered reputable for the purposes of the policy. These include:


 * Is it openly partisan?
 * Does it have a large or very small readership?
 * Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff?
 * Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip?
 * If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes?

In many cases, editors will have no difficulty agreeing upon the answers to these questions. In other cases, differences of opinion may arise regarding whether the threshold has been reached for a source to be considered reputable. For example, editors might agree on the actual circulation of a journal yet disagree over the issue of whether the circulation is "large". Differences may also arise regarding how many of the test questions must be "passed". All of the questions? Just one?

The mediator suggests that the parties agree to follow a guideline to deal with cases where differences of opinion exist regarding whether or not a source should be considered reputable. The mediator suggests the following: This is a conservative guideline. If a source is recognized as reputable by the general consent of the editors, then this guideline will accept the source as reputable. However, if it is disputed that the source is reputable, the guideline errs on the side of not accepting the source. The guideline breaks the decision into parts in the hopes of thwarting attempts to block consensus on grounds other than those provided by Wikipedia policy.
 * 1) For each of the test questions mentioned above, it should be determined whether there is a rough consensus on that question.  The answers to the test questions either speak in favor of reputability or speak against it.  For the sake of brevity, I will call any question on which there is a rough consensus speaking in favor of reputability as "favorably settled".
 * 2) It should be determined whether there is rough consensus that the favorably settled questions, when considered together, provide a threshold of reputabilitly.
 * 3) If a consensus does not exist that the favorably settled questions are sufficient for the threshold of reputability, then the source should not be considered reputable for Wikipedia policy.

Please indicate whether you are willing to abide by this guideline. Please discuss other matters elsewhere. --BostonMA 23:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Andries: Disagree. I have no intention to have good sources vetoed by a person whose writings show a lack common sense, who sees deception were there are simply mistakes, who sees everybody who criticizes SSB as biased due to a a Christian, Skeptic, Atheist, anti-cultist background or otherwise biased background. I am sorry for giving problems in the mediation. Andries 00:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * SSS108: I agree. SSS108 03:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thaumaturgic: excused -- on vacation

Determination of Reputable Sources
According to the Wikipedia policy No Original Research, only material which has been published by a reputable source ought to be included in Wikipedia articles. A number of tests for determining whether a source may be considered reputable for the purposes of the policy. These include:


 * Is it openly partisan?
 * Does it have a large or very small readership?
 * Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff?
 * Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip?
 * If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes?

The mediator suggests the following guideline to determine whether or not a source should be considered to be reputable per the NOR policy.
 * First, and answer to each of the questions above should be determined by appropriate means,
 * Second, it should be determined whether there is a suffient number of answers to the above questions that speak in favor of reputability to meet some threshold determined by appropriate means. If the threshold is met, the source should be considered reputable.  If the threshold is not met, the article should be considered insufficiently reputable for the purposes of Wikipedia's NOR policy.

Please express your willingness or unwillingness to follow this guideline. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. --BostonMA 17:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Andries: I agree Basically a good source should be determined on a case by case basis. The above mentioned criteria should serve a a general guideline. Andries 22:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Andries, are you saying that you are no longer willing to follow this guideline? --BostonMA 01:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * BostonMA, strict interpretation without the use of common sense can lead to bizarre consequences, such as the fact that I can use the earlier books by Steel and Priddy as a source, but not their homepages in which they now completely refute their own writings. Andries 16:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Andries, one of the consequences that result from this guideline are that sometimes factual information is omitted from Wikipedia, and sometimes misinformation is included. This may seem bizarre and contrary to common sense if your expectation is that Wikipedia should contain the most up to date and accurate information.  Yet this very point is discussed in WP:NOR in the discussion of the scientist who has a new theory which refutes his or her previously published theory.  The guideline above gives direction for what should be included in a decision about reputability, and implicitly, what should not be included in a decision about reputability.  It also describes, in a general way, how the data relating to reputability ought to be combined to make an overall decision about reputabilitly.  If you think other factors ought to be included in the decision, you should say what those factors are.  If you think some of the factors listed should not be included in the decision, you should list them.  Third, if you think that some other method should be used for combining the various bits of information, you should describe that method.  However, given that there has been much dispute over reputable sources, I am inclined to think that deciding "case by case" and without using a clear guideline, is a recipe for near endless contention.  Please express your thoughts on what I've written above.  --BostonMA 16:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your opinion and it has at least some merit. Please give me some more time to think about this complicated issue. Andries 19:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that when writers refute on their homepage their own previously published writings then this should be mentioned with at least footnote to deal with the bizarre consequences that contradict common sense of strict adherence to the Wikipedia policies. I had asked other editors about this in Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/archive4 and user:Lumiere wrote that we should add a footnote. For the rest I cannot see any problems with adherring to this guideline.Andries 12:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * SSS108: I Agree. SSS108 20:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thaumaturgic: excused -- on vacation