User:Marjan Tomki SI/sandbox

User:Marjan Tomki SI/sandbox/1

Troubleshooting some WP principles
I wholeheartably agree to "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.", but to have it as equivalent to "Verifialability to an accepted source" is - from my point of view, one of major ones.

It is the same pitt that trapped medieval sholastics, till experiment was (re)introduced to science.

I may have misunderstood this guideline (I hope)(understanding both literally, and based on praxis of both fast proposals for deletion of not-yet-properly-sourced material (non-controversial), and - benevolent, IMO - editors on sl:WP, who had based their decisions heavily on dictionary definitions, which often gets out of sync with newer use, meaings, conventions and research, and got some - to WP outsider who knows the field - ridiculous results that we had not solved yet).

Researching sources lately also showed me errors (e.g. lapsus, factual, intentional, methodological etc.) in "supposedly reliable" (accepted by majority) sources, where professionals mostly agreed with my detections and conclusions, and in serveral cases errors were corrected (e.g. errata corrige) or corrections/comments on methology etc. are intended with next editions.

They and some previous troubleshooting (restoration of decaying data on CD/DVD library for a museum - had enough luck to have been successfull) also showed me decay of (both digital and other) sources. What I know about history - and I grew up in broad family of eminent historians (three generations of notables) and linguists (you also need to know language of the period you study), and I read through much of content of their (multilanguage) libraries (most of what was in languages I understood) (grandpa and uncle both had about 13 000 titles of books, and several of history and literature related periodicals).

Iam also aware of (and have IMO reliable peer reviewed published sources, but not in English) of a philosophy of history thread of thought (part of stream called postmodernism in my source, published 1996), that claimed history is impossible.

To be edited: Mirjana Gros, Kako pisati o povjesti historiografije, Grafenauerjev zbornik, page 165, ISBN 961-6182-14-5, published 1996 by ZRC SAZU From there, that thread can be summarized: Removing history (because it's not perfect) could be seen analogous to causing amnesia, because memory (human or else) is not perfect.
 * Any data is suspect (with several sets of well reasoned and founded reasons I can also discuss, and mostly agree with).
 * Historians are not perfect nor ideal (are influenced by all the human weaknesses)
 * Science of history is dead without data (same with statistic etc., true by my oppinion).
 * Imperfection of scientists doesn't help reliability (meaning influences by money, politics, fear etc.)(I agree)
 * Their conclusion: history as science is dead (wrong, by my oppinion).

I see similar (if not the same) problem within wikipedia, and it's striving for "perfect" sources only.

So my focus of my effort shifts
 * on troubleshooting and changes in sources, e.g. (exempli gratia):
 * detection and correction of errors, and
 * causing improvements in methology etc. there, including to teachers in that fields so it spreads
 * to effort for acceptance of that changes (on all levels) in scholarly (or other) communities,

So I probably won't be much here intentionally. I'll mostly teach, and get taught
 * on methodologies - of general thinking, problem solving, troubleshooting, systems and systematic view on things (mostly under sails, but not about sailing only)
 * on being critical accepting any data and conclusion, including (and most intensely) ones own.

Direct partial test area
https://web.archive.org/web/20110726074858/http://zalozba.zrc-sazu.si/index.php?q=sl%2Fnode%2F500
 * Wikipedia:Citing sources
 * Link to Grafenauerjev zbornik on web archive
 * Testing to be continued