Mailing List Archive

--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now here is the rub, when you insist that all our articles need to
> provide sources, you will lose our stubs. You will make the composition
> of the content different. When you only consider only the English or the
> German language wikipedia you may be of the opinion that it has enough
> content. For projects that are in its infancy like the Swahili Wikipedia
> it would be a killer. It would be a killer because we do not have the
> vibrant community that we wish for it.

Smaller language versions of Wikipedia need to emphasize growth over quality, true. But larger
language version (not projects! Wikipedia itself is a project) do not and would be greatly
improved by requiring sources.

> It is indeed great to strive to be better than other encyclopaedias.
> There biggest achievement is in the relevancy that they had in the past.
> Encyclopaedias were the embodiment of knowledge. Many people grew up
> with them and acquired knowledge that way. Wikipedia is young and its
> relevancy is something that can only be judged in the future.

And yet many millions of people are using the larger language versions of Wikipedia as reference
sources RIGHT NOW. We have a responsibility to do what we can to increase the chances of actually
serving them accurate content. Creating a culture of sourcing material to good references in the
larger language versions of Wikipedia will help a great deal in that regard.

-- mav



__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
Yes it is. Other sources can be wrong as well and as I mentioned before
you would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Thanks,
GerardM


daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
>
> Is it too much to ask that contributions to Wikipedia be correct? That is
> news to me.
>
> Danny
>
> In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:04:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
>
> It is too high
> because you insist on contributions to be unchallengeable.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

If that is the attitude, then I really have nothing more to say here.

Danny

In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:34:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:

Hoi,
Yes it is. Other sources can be wrong as well and as I mentioned before
you would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Thanks,
GerardM


daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
>
> Is it too much to ask that contributions to Wikipedia be correct? That is
> news to me.




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
Why, you ridicule what I have said and I give a deserving answer. You
replied to a lengthy reply, I gave plenty of arguments. And this is all
you take out of it? You do not go into the arguments that were given.
From my perspective in your previous post you had nothing to say.
Thanks,
GerardM

daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
>
> If that is the attitude, then I really have nothing more to say here.
>
> Danny
>
> In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:34:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
>
> Hoi,
> Yes it is. Other sources can be wrong as well and as I mentioned before
> you would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Is it too much to ask that contributions to Wikipedia be correct? That is
>> news to me.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Ridicule? No. I am simply disappointed that you can even make such a
statement. It shows me that we have very radically different ideas about what an
encyclopedia is. Providing correct information is not something I am willing to
compromise. I had hoped that this sentiment was shared by all of Wikipedia's
editors and contributors.

Danny

In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:46:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:

Hoi,
Why, you ridicule what I have said and I give a deserving answer. You
replied to a lengthy reply, I gave plenty of arguments. And this is all
you take out of it? You do not go into the arguments that were given.
>From my perspective in your previous post you had nothing to say.
Thanks,
GerardM

daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
>
> If that is the attitude, then I really have nothing more to say here.
>
> Danny
>
> In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:34:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
>
> Hoi,
> Yes it is. Other sources can be wrong as well and as I mentioned before
> you would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Is it too much to ask that contributions to Wikipedia be correct? That
is
>> news to me.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

daniwo59@aol.com wrote:

>
>Is it too much to ask that contributions to Wikipedia be correct? That is
>news to me.
>
>Danny
>
There is a difference between an entry being correct and someone having
to defend every letter of it.

Waerth/Walter
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Walter van Kalken wrote:

> daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Is it too much to ask that contributions to Wikipedia be correct?
>> That is news to me.
>>
>> Danny
>>
> There is a difference between an entry being correct and someone
> having to defend every letter of it.

Britannica has to defend every letter of it before they can get
published. The same is true for all other major encyclopedias. Why
wouldn't it be true for us? Aren't we trying to make an encyclopedia here?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

daniwo59@aol.com wrote:

>
>Ridicule? No. I am simply disappointed that you can even make such a
>statement. It shows me that we have very radically different ideas about what an
>encyclopedia is. Providing correct information is not something I am willing to
>compromise. I had hoped that this sentiment was shared by all of Wikipedia's
>editors and contributors.
>
>Danny
>
>
Yes this sentiment is shared Danny. But it is like Sabine said. In many
cases you just know things. You simply forgot where you heard them. Also
many things are sourced only in languages other than english. I have
already seen an article on en.wikipedia deletion list which was put on
there because it was not considered to have had a source. Its source was
a German text which was linked! And a Dutch wikipedia article. This
wasn't considered enough because it was not English. So if I put up a
Thai source in Thai would it be accepted as sourced?

Some things are just common knowledge. I would much rather see a
wikipedia editor, especially a trusted one as a source in some cases.

Walter/Waerth
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Brian wrote:

>
>
> Walter van Kalken wrote:
>
>> daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Is it too much to ask that contributions to Wikipedia be correct?
>>> That is news to me.
>>>
>>> Danny
>>>
>> There is a difference between an entry being correct and someone
>> having to defend every letter of it.
>
>
> Britannica has to defend every letter of it before they can get
> published. The same is true for all other major encyclopedias. Why
> wouldn't it be true for us? Aren't we trying to make an encyclopedia
> here?

Wikipedia is based on mutual trust. I trust that you put valid info on
there. I ask you for the same trust. Now asking me to go and dig up were
the hell I learned some things in my 32 years on this planet is a bit to
much. If I actually research something especially for wikipedia I put
sources on there(which is most of my contributions) If I just happen to
know something I do not. You just have to trust my statement. Wikipedia
is based on trust! Now if you say you cannot trust me I have to put
about a 1000 articles on nl: and about 20 or so on en: on votes for
deletion.

Waerth/Walter
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Walter van Kalken wrote:

> daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Ridicule? No. I am simply disappointed that you can even make such a
>> statement. It shows me that we have very radically different ideas
>> about what an encyclopedia is. Providing correct information is not
>> something I am willing to compromise. I had hoped that this
>> sentiment was shared by all of Wikipedia's editors and contributors.
>> Danny
>>
>>
> Yes this sentiment is shared Danny. But it is like Sabine said. In
> many cases you just know things. You simply forgot where you heard
> them. Also many things are sourced only in languages other than
> english. I have already seen an article on en.wikipedia deletion list
> which was put on there because it was not considered to have had a
> source. Its source was a German text which was linked! And a Dutch
> wikipedia article. This wasn't considered enough because it was not
> English. So if I put up a Thai source in Thai would it be accepted as
> sourced?
>
> Some things are just common knowledge. I would much rather see a
> wikipedia editor, especially a trusted one as a source in some cases.

Just because you have identified possible exceptions to the rule doesn't
mean the whole thing should be thrown out. There are always exceptions
which are more difficult to work with. The fact that some sources aren't
in English doesn't mean all sources should be thrown out.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I don't see that as what Gerard's saying at all. We absolutely do need
to improve the quality and accuracy of information, but not to the point
that it becomes an obsession. Failing to provide sources can leave the
accuracy of an article in doubt, but it does not imply that it is
necessarily wrong. We need to develop a culture of accuracy based on
the positive view that providing references makes an article better, and
not the negative view that we need it because of the consequences of
some kind of rule enforcement.

One can look at the wiki as some kind of multilevel mental Mandelbrot
with different aspects being at different levels of development. The
pattern repeats itself on individual articles, in broad areas, in sister
and other language projects, and in the project as a whole. If over
some time period 20% of articles will achieve proper referenced status
you can't specify two out of any given ten will be happily improved. At
the same time new stubs will be born somewhere else. It's all in the
Zen of wiki growth.

Ec

daniwo59@aol.com wrote:

>Ridicule? No. I am simply disappointed that you can even make such a
>statement. It shows me that we have very radically different ideas about what an
>encyclopedia is. Providing correct information is not something I am willing to
>compromise. I had hoped that this sentiment was shared by all of Wikipedia's
>editors and contributors.
>
>Danny
>
>In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:46:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
>
>Hoi,
>Why, you ridicule what I have said and I give a deserving answer. You
>replied to a lengthy reply, I gave plenty of arguments. And this is all
>you take out of it? You do not go into the arguments that were given.
>>From my perspective in your previous post you had nothing to say.
>Thanks,
>GerardM
>
>daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>>If that is the attitude, then I really have nothing more to say here.
>>
>>Danny
>>
>> In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:34:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>> gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
>>
>>Hoi,
>>Yes it is. Other sources can be wrong as well and as I mentioned before
>> you would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>>
>>
>>daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Is it too much to ask that contributions to Wikipedia be correct? That is
>>>
>>>
>>>news to me.
>>>
>>>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 12/3/05, Walter van Kalken <walter@vankalken.net> wrote:
>>Brian wrote:
> > Britannica has to defend every letter of it before they can get
> > published. The same is true for all other major encyclopedias. Why
> > wouldn't it be true for us? Aren't we trying to make an encyclopedia
> > here?

I'm jumping in the train. There is a limit to what can be sourced, and
what cannot. Not *every* word can be. But every fact *should* be
sourced, in an ideal world, yes. I agree.

>
> Wikipedia is based on mutual trust. I trust that you put valid info on
> there. I ask you for the same trust. Now asking me to go and dig up were
> the hell I learned some things in my 32 years on this planet is a bit to
> much. If I actually research something especially for wikipedia I put
> sources on there(which is most of my contributions) If I just happen to
> know something I do not. You just have to trust my statement. Wikipedia
> is based on trust! Now if you say you cannot trust me I have to put
> about a 1000 articles on nl: and about 20 or so on en: on votes for
> deletion.

Quoting you : "Wikipedia is based on trust"

Yes, and no.
Yes, there are certain editors I trust, as we do all, and others I
distrust. I will trust you on the Soi article, because *I* know you
live there. In that, in my eyes, *you* are a known source. But where I
trust you, there could (and should) be 20 editors who distrust you.
Not because of you, because in fact, they don't know you, but because
then they would go and look for opposing sources, or verifying sources
to support the facts you put in your articles. And I think that is
good.

No, Wikipedia *should* not be solely based on trust. I think we,
editors, are too often forgetting that *we* know to trust some people,
but that readers, who never ever get to hit the "history" button,
should not take us for granted,a nd that we should give them every
possible means to verify that what is stated in an article is indeed
verifiable.

I remember when I did my first presentation of Wikipedia. The same
question that comes up all the time came up that time also. "If anyone
can edit, how can you trust". I was new to the whole thing, so I gave
what I thought was the best answer at the time "Well, if *you* find a
mistake, correct it, and there are xxx contributors who look at
articles and do rc patrolling, etc."

At that point a woman in the assistance got up and said "Well, I have
an answer to this. I believe that the fact that Wikipedia *can* be
distrusted is a good thing. In this world where so much information is
given to us with no background, no distanciation, the fact that
Wikipedia keeps people wondering is good, because it obliges them to
go and find other sources, to diversify their views on one subject".

That opened a whole different view on the projects to me.

Mind you, I am not saying that we *should* have mistakes in the
articles, on the contrary. But sourcing, which in my view is crucial,
as Danny,Sj and Michael pointed out, should not be seen as having for
sole role that of making Wikipedia look "better", (ie. we are right,
that guy said it) but as our due to the readers. See for yourself.

We are striving to write an encyclopedia, but by definition, we don't
have it all. You, reader, can trust us, because we can direct you to
other sources where we got our information, but at the same time, you
should see for yourself, and here is how you can do it, follow the
link. And also, please, if you disagree, if we've got something wrong,
by all means, add your source, and their point of view.

Without sources, we pretend *we* are the source, and I believe that is
wrong. We should be *one source* not *the source*

Best,

Delphine
--
~notafish
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Ray Saintonge wrote:

> I don't see that as what Gerard's saying at all. We absolutely do
> need to improve the quality and accuracy of information, but not to
> the point that it becomes an obsession.

This "obsession" is exactly what is required of print encyclopedias. How
are we an encyclopedia if we aren't held to the same standards?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Delphine Ménard wrote:

>On 12/3/05, Walter van Kalken <walter@vankalken.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Brian wrote:
>>>Britannica has to defend every letter of it before they can get
>>>published. The same is true for all other major encyclopedias. Why
>>>wouldn't it be true for us? Aren't we trying to make an encyclopedia
>>>here?
>>>
>>>
>
>I'm jumping in the train. There is a limit to what can be sourced, and
>what cannot. Not *every* word can be. But every fact *should* be
>sourced, in an ideal world, yes. I agree.
>
>
>
>>Wikipedia is based on mutual trust. I trust that you put valid info on
>>there. I ask you for the same trust. Now asking me to go and dig up were
>>the hell I learned some things in my 32 years on this planet is a bit to
>>much. If I actually research something especially for wikipedia I put
>>sources on there(which is most of my contributions) If I just happen to
>>know something I do not. You just have to trust my statement. Wikipedia
>>is based on trust! Now if you say you cannot trust me I have to put
>>about a 1000 articles on nl: and about 20 or so on en: on votes for
>>deletion.
>>
>>
>
>Quoting you : "Wikipedia is based on trust"
>
>Yes, and no.
>Yes, there are certain editors I trust, as we do all, and others I
>distrust. I will trust you on the Soi article, because *I* know you
>live there. In that, in my eyes, *you* are a known source. But where I
>trust you, there could (and should) be 20 editors who distrust you.
>Not because of you, because in fact, they don't know you, but because
>then they would go and look for opposing sources, or verifying sources
>to support the facts you put in your articles. And I think that is
>good.
>
>No, Wikipedia *should* not be solely based on trust. I think we,
>editors, are too often forgetting that *we* know to trust some people,
>but that readers, who never ever get to hit the "history" button,
>should not take us for granted,a nd that we should give them every
>possible means to verify that what is stated in an article is indeed
>verifiable.
>
> I remember when I did my first presentation of Wikipedia. The same
>question that comes up all the time came up that time also. "If anyone
>can edit, how can you trust". I was new to the whole thing, so I gave
>what I thought was the best answer at the time "Well, if *you* find a
>mistake, correct it, and there are xxx contributors who look at
>articles and do rc patrolling, etc."
>
>At that point a woman in the assistance got up and said "Well, I have
>an answer to this. I believe that the fact that Wikipedia *can* be
>distrusted is a good thing. In this world where so much information is
>given to us with no background, no distanciation, the fact that
>Wikipedia keeps people wondering is good, because it obliges them to
>go and find other sources, to diversify their views on one subject".
>
>That opened a whole different view on the projects to me.
>
>Mind you, I am not saying that we *should* have mistakes in the
>articles, on the contrary. But sourcing, which in my view is crucial,
>as Danny,Sj and Michael pointed out, should not be seen as having for
>sole role that of making Wikipedia look "better", (ie. we are right,
>that guy said it) but as our due to the readers. See for yourself.
>
>We are striving to write an encyclopedia, but by definition, we don't
>have it all. You, reader, can trust us, because we can direct you to
>other sources where we got our information, but at the same time, you
>should see for yourself, and here is how you can do it, follow the
>link. And also, please, if you disagree, if we've got something wrong,
>by all means, add your source, and their point of view.
>
>Without sources, we pretend *we* are the source, and I believe that is
>wrong. We should be *one source* not *the source*
>
>Best,
>
>Delphine
>
Thank you for your statements. I agree completely with your reasoning.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

SJ wrote:

>On 12/2/05, Brian <brian0918@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-December/005312.html
>>
>>I especially like the option to include "cited text" and "paraphrase".
>>So, as his sample image shows, we can essentially cite every bit of an
>>article, thus becoming as sourced as any published book or encyclopedia,
>>but better!.. because our sources are public, whereas with Britannica,
>>
>>
>That would be more sourced than most published books or encyclos.
>
>We can also track and show (as mouseover text?) the contributed-date
>and contributing-user for every word/set of words in an article.
>There are a few nuances in getting the attribution right, but we can
>at least offer a first-approximation without much work. Figuring out
>how to effectively store and render that information, is another
>question...
>
"King Disrupters" do not thrive by shying away from ambitious projects. :-)

I haven't a clue about the technical feasibility of this idea. Since
this seems like a move from the presentation of the world's knowledge to
the integration of the world's knowledge. That would certainly
represent a fulfilment of freeing the world's knowledge in the sense
that Jimbo expressed in his Wikimania speech. Every quantum of
knowledge would be connected with every other quantum of knowledge.

The first reference approximation involves nothing more than adding
broad references in a separate section near the end of an article.
Annotations or "foot"notes whcich relate to discrete segments of a text
are really a second approximation. The main text must be readable to
the average reader whose interests do not require in depth study; having
unwanted pop-up mouse-overs does not endear the reader to any project.

As Gerard pointed out we also need to keep connected with the average
contributor, to who we already owe much. He still has a lot to say and
a lot to offer. We would be delighted if he could provide full
bibliographical support for his own material, but a more realistic
expectation would be a single link. we don't want to fall into soome
new form of academic elitism.

I can now understand why some material may need to be kept unavailable
to the public through us. If we are going to connect everything that
must include copyright material which can only be caged in inaccesible
archives until it can be set free.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Now here is the rub, when you insist that all our articles need to
>>provide sources, you will lose our stubs. You will make the composition
>>of the content different. When you only consider only the English or the
>>German language wikipedia you may be of the opinion that it has enough
>>content. For projects that are in its infancy like the Swahili Wikipedia
>>it would be a killer. It would be a killer because we do not have the
>>vibrant community that we wish for it.
>>
>>
>Smaller language versions of Wikipedia need to emphasize growth over quality, true. But larger
>language version (not projects! Wikipedia itself is a project) do not and would be greatly
>improved by requiring sources.
>
Source citations must eventually apply to all projects. It's just a
matter of when or at what stage it is introduced.

>>It is indeed great to strive to be better than other encyclopaedias.
>>There biggest achievement is in the relevancy that they had in the past.
>>Encyclopaedias were the embodiment of knowledge. Many people grew up
>>with them and acquired knowledge that way. Wikipedia is young and its
>>relevancy is something that can only be judged in the future.
>>
>>
>And yet many millions of people are using the larger language versions of Wikipedia as reference
>sources RIGHT NOW. We have a responsibility to do what we can to increase the chances of actually
>serving them accurate content. Creating a culture of sourcing material to good references in the
>larger language versions of Wikipedia will help a great deal in that regard.
>
A sourcing culture is good, but it must not become a culture of panic
that requires every little bit to be sourced immediately.

Ec


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Brian wrote:

> Walter van Kalken wrote:
>
>> daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> Is it too much to ask that contributions to Wikipedia be correct?
>>> That is news to me.
>>>
>>> Danny
>>
>> There is a difference between an entry being correct and someone
>> having to defend every letter of it.
>
> Britannica has to defend every letter of it before they can get
> published. The same is true for all other major encyclopedias. Why
> wouldn't it be true for us? Aren't we trying to make an encyclopedia
> here?

No, we're trying to be better. :-P

It's not a question of defence. It's a question of mindsets and
attitudes. It's a question of drawing people in and having them want to
belong. It's not about adversarial structures that alienate people. We
are on the same side when it comes to identifying the fundamental
problem that we want to solve.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Brian wrote:

> Walter van Kalken wrote:
>
>> daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> Ridicule? No. I am simply disappointed that you can even make such
>>> a statement. It shows me that we have very radically different
>>> ideas about what an encyclopedia is. Providing correct information
>>> is not something I am willing to compromise. I had hoped that this
>>> sentiment was shared by all of Wikipedia's editors and contributors.
>>> Danny
>>
>> Yes this sentiment is shared Danny. But it is like Sabine said. In
>> many cases you just know things. You simply forgot where you heard
>> them. Also many things are sourced only in languages other than
>> english. I have already seen an article on en.wikipedia deletion list
>> which was put on there because it was not considered to have had a
>> source. Its source was a German text which was linked! And a Dutch
>> wikipedia article. This wasn't considered enough because it was not
>> English. So if I put up a Thai source in Thai would it be accepted as
>> sourced?
>>
>> Some things are just common knowledge. I would much rather see a
>> wikipedia editor, especially a trusted one as a source in some cases.
>
> Just because you have identified possible exceptions to the rule
> doesn't mean the whole thing should be thrown out. There are always
> exceptions which are more difficult to work with. The fact that some
> sources aren't in English doesn't mean all sources should be thrown out.

What language a source is in shouldn't matter at all. If you absolutely
need one in English then add it rather than treating a foreign language
source as inferior.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

>
> As Gerard pointed out we also need to keep connected with the average
> contributor, to who we already owe much. He still has a lot to say
> and a lot to offer. We would be delighted if he could provide full
> bibliographical support for his own material, but a more realistic
> expectation would be a single link. we don't want to fall into soome
> new form of academic elitism.

Ec, thanks for that one ... I suppose you understood also what I mean -
I am not against giving references (I add them when I have them here),
but I am not willing (or better I really do not have the time) to
re-research whatever I learnt ... and also: many things come out of
stuff I translated - sometimes when I translate things they are not for
the public in that moment (new machinery developments, sometimes press
releases that are prepared beforehand etc. - this is impossible to be
followed up and also to be cited as source - these, in the moment I work
on it, must be kept secret and I would never give that information out
before you can't read about it in other places) and that after years are
just "normal" things people talk about every day. This is valid for many
of us.

>
> I can now understand why some material may need to be kept unavailable
> to the public through us. If we are going to connect everything that
> must include copyright material which can only be caged in inaccesible
> archives until it can be set free.

Well, this is one of those things ... some poeple would give parts of
their copyrighted and non GFDL material to a portal if they may decide
any license for it. This means: somehwere on the web, we should have
such a place. There are for example authors that allow for publication
of their work, but they don't want it under GFDL - so what would be
wrong with such a place? It would make sure that things are collected in
"one library" and the when things become copyright free it can simply be
transferred to the right projects. And: it would be much easier to
connect things.

Ciao, Sabine


___________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo
http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Brian wrote:

> Britannica has to defend every letter of it before they can get
> published. The same is true for all other major encyclopedias. Why
> wouldn't it be true for us? Aren't we trying to make an encyclopedia
> here?

Yeah, Nupedia tried that already.

The Wikipedia process is explicitly not to require perfection up front.
Ideally, every fact would indeed be referenced. And if you can add
references to an article, that's a great thing. If we end up with some
system of vetting good articles, perhaps only well-referenced articles
should be allowed to get the higher markings. Those are all fine, and
all much different than prohibiting edits that are not meticulously
referenced in the first place.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l