Sarkarverse:Central discussion forum/Articles: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
(→‎top: DFA)
Line 32: Line 32:


::There is another issue, and that is the spelling of "margii". Technically, the word should have two 'i's at the end, similar to "yogii". However, in many newspapers and perhaps even dictionaries, we find a single 'i'. My preference is to use two 'i's, regardless of the current popular convention. On Sarkarverse, we don't blindly parrot whatever is written elsewhere. Our priority is to present both accurate and verifiable information. We do not want to present information that is merely verifiable but easily shown to be inaccurate. For example, "So-and-so wrote this about such-and-such" might be a 100% accurate statement; but if what So-and-so wrote is also demonstrably (verifiably) wrong, we won't publish it without also presenting the correct information. That type of information - someone's incorrect comment - is valuable in a critiques or commentaries section at the end of an article; but, typically, it should not be presented in the main body (earlier sections) of the article. (Of course, if the article is about the person who made the incorrect observations, then that incorrect information might appear in the main body, though there would also be a caution that the information is wrong.) --[[User:Abhidevananda|Abhidevananda]] ([[User talk:Abhidevananda|talk]]) 21:13, 18 June 2014 (MDT)
::There is another issue, and that is the spelling of "margii". Technically, the word should have two 'i's at the end, similar to "yogii". However, in many newspapers and perhaps even dictionaries, we find a single 'i'. My preference is to use two 'i's, regardless of the current popular convention. On Sarkarverse, we don't blindly parrot whatever is written elsewhere. Our priority is to present both accurate and verifiable information. We do not want to present information that is merely verifiable but easily shown to be inaccurate. For example, "So-and-so wrote this about such-and-such" might be a 100% accurate statement; but if what So-and-so wrote is also demonstrably (verifiably) wrong, we won't publish it without also presenting the correct information. That type of information - someone's incorrect comment - is valuable in a critiques or commentaries section at the end of an article; but, typically, it should not be presented in the main body (earlier sections) of the article. (Of course, if the article is about the person who made the incorrect observations, then that incorrect information might appear in the main body, though there would also be a caution that the information is wrong.) --[[User:Abhidevananda|Abhidevananda]] ([[User talk:Abhidevananda|talk]]) 21:13, 18 June 2014 (MDT)
[[Category:Central discussion forum]]
14,061

edits

Navigation menu