Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia ... but where are you going ... (was:Enforcing WP:CITE ...)

Wikipedia ... but where are you going ... (was:Enforcing WP:CITE ...)

Dec 3, 2005, 6:29 AM

Post #1 of 13 (874 views)

Really today I wanted to write about my presentation in Cracow, the
feedback I got from "not Wikipedians" to the Wikimedia projects ... well
and now I just read a long list of e-mails on how to make Wikipedia an
encyclopaedia with "secure" information.

"Secure" information is a very POV thingie ... what is secure ...
written by people I believe? Written by someone I don't know whose
website or book is quoted? Hmmmm ... we already know that: all
encyclopaedias include errors. All books can contain wrong information.
Now when I presume that Mr Cancellor XYZ only because he is Mr. XYZ says
the truth I quote him and therefore I am "regular". Then there is that
person who read hundreds of books, websites, e-mails and whatsoever and
just "knows" but does not really recall where all the information he/she
has in the grey cells comes from, but knows that there are controversary
points about a theme, knows that what Mr XYZ says is not 100% ok, but
this is then considered as "insecure information" and therefore needs to
be discarded ... well ... ehm ... sorry ...

Then again: since I had to explain the basics about Wikipedia during the
conference I used two articles for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

Now what you are writing in all these mails (well those who are for
"citing") gives very much the expression of Nupedia and not Wikipedia
... where is freedom gone?
Then considering "Wikipedia" as it was wanted to be ... where is it
going? Into some kind of dead-end place for only academics and researchers?

Hmmmm .........

Let's consider translators: we have our specific subjects, but also
translate loads of general texts - this means when working we also learn
... well: we know loads of things, not only words ... so now a colleague
wants to write about a subject he/she knows really well ... but who of
us is able to recall where all the information we have in mind comes
from? I don't. So only because we are not able to remeber every single
source we read during our researches our information is less valid ...
hmmmm .... well .... for me this would mean: we are not going to
contribute anything since it does not make sense - it would be deleted
... or ... wait ... there is one thing that could be done ...

Take a dump of wikipedia, put it on a server and just go ahead editing
... great!!!! what an idea!!! Wikipedia showed how to do this in its
beginnings ... well what Wikipedia did can be done by anyone ... we are
talking about GFDL ...

Fine ... wonderful .... so just go ahead restricting contributors - go
into your dead-end position and you will see that Wikipedia will follow
Nupedia - and that someone considered a bit mad will just take over the
contents and allow people to edit like it was done up to now.

Well ... now you say: but newspapers criticise us ... and here I tell
you: whoever has success is being criticised - in the end: they are
making a huge compliment to Wikipedia - it became so huge and important
that it needs to be criticised ...

Come on: let them talk - let's just go ahead working without listening
to them doing our best. The day is not far and they will need to stop
because Wikipedia will show them that liberty and democracy survives any
attack.

Hmmm .....

Well ... think well about what you are doing to your dearest project and
don't repeat errors done in the past.

The Cracow-Conference follow up will come ... as soon as time permits.

*****
I just read Danny's message: you understand it like this, some other
people understand it like this, but what is going to come out is a huge
mess since the "citing is necessary" thingie will be interpreted in a
very wrong way ... try it out and you will see ... things like these
arleady happen - not for citing but for other "requirements".
*****

Have a great week-end!

Sabine

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Wikipedia ... but where are you going ... (was:Enforcing WP:CITE ...) [ In reply to ]

maveric149 at yahoo

Dec 3, 2005, 7:02 AM

Post #2 of 13 (865 views)

Permalink

--- Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella@yahoo.it> wrote:
> Fine ... wonderful .... so just go ahead restricting contributors - go
> into your dead-end position and you will see that Wikipedia will follow
> Nupedia - and that someone considered a bit mad will just take over the
> contents and allow people to edit like it was done up to now.

Requiring people to add references does not needlessly restrict them. It improves the content. We
are here to serve a goal; create the world's largest and best free encyclopedia. Adding references
helps us toward that goal.

Nupedia was on one end of the spectrum and Wikipedia is on the other. Nupedia died because it was
too restrictive. Wikipedia needed to be very open in order to encourage growth. That was fine when
we were small and hardly anybody knew of us or used our content. Now things have changed; millions
of people use Wikipedia every month and expect it to be accurate. Requiring references helps us
attain higher quality.

> Come on: let them talk - let's just go ahead working without listening
> to them doing our best. The day is not far and they will need to stop
> because Wikipedia will show them that liberty and democracy survives any
> attack.

We are already famous, so bad press is simply bad (esp right before a fund drive). But beyond
that, this particular incident showed a place where our review system failed and failed badly.

If we required references, then somebody from RC patrol would have tagged the the offending
article as unsourced and subject to eventual deletion. That tells readers to not at all trust what
is in that article and encourages editors to check the article and add references. I see nothing
wrong with that.

Like it or not we are being used as a major reference source. Readers rely on us to be accurate.
Adding references helps us do that.

-- mav

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com

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

Re: Wikipedia ... but where are you going ... (was:Enforcing WP:CITE ...) [ In reply to ]

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Dec 3, 2005, 7:26 AM

Post #3 of 13 (851 views)

Permalink

Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella@yahoo.it> wrote:
>
>> Fine ... wonderful .... so just go ahead restricting contributors - go
>> into your dead-end position and you will see that Wikipedia will follow
>> Nupedia - and that someone considered a bit mad will just take over the
>> contents and allow people to edit like it was done up to now.
>>
>
> Requiring people to add references does not needlessly restrict them. It improves the content. We
> are here to serve a goal; create the world's largest and best free encyclopedia. Adding references
> helps us toward that goal.
>
> Nupedia was on one end of the spectrum and Wikipedia is on the other. Nupedia died because it was
> too restrictive. Wikipedia needed to be very open in order to encourage growth. That was fine when
> we were small and hardly anybody knew of us or used our content. Now things have changed; millions
> of people use Wikipedia every month and expect it to be accurate. Requiring references helps us
> attain higher quality.
>
When you start *requiring *references, you will move from one side of
the spectrum to the other end of the spectrum. Having a blind belief in
references is as bad as not referencing at all. The references you come
up with are probably English and you cannot truly appreciate sources in
other languages. Your ideas about Wikipedia are about the English
Wikipedia. This is the Foundation mailing list and as a consequence I
take it that you want to have references on all Wikipedia projects.
Again it is a sure way of killing off our less mature projects.
>
>
>> Come on: let them talk - let's just go ahead working without listening
>> to them doing our best. The day is not far and they will need to stop
>> because Wikipedia will show them that liberty and democracy survives any
>> attack.
>>
>
> We are already famous, so bad press is simply bad (esp right before a fund drive). But beyond
> that, this particular incident showed a place where our review system failed and failed badly.
>
> If we required references, then somebody from RC patrol would have tagged the the offending
> article as unsourced and subject to eventual deletion. That tells readers to not at all trust what
> is in that article and encourages editors to check the article and add references. I see nothing
> wrong with that.
>
> Like it or not we are being used as a major reference source. Readers rely on us to be accurate.
> Adding references helps us do that.
>
> -- mav
When we are so famous, why is it that maybe 3% of the Italians know
Wikipedia .. Why do you think we have so few resources where we could
make a difference.. We may be relevant in English but with a similar
resource in Kannada, or Osetian we would be truly relevant. We would be
relevant because we would define a genre.

I am sorry but in my opinion this whole thing is too inward looking. You
do not appreciate the potential fallout of all this.

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

Re: Wikipedia ... but where are you going ... (was:Enforcing WP:CITE ...) [ In reply to ]

sabine_cretella at yahoo

Dec 3, 2005, 7:43 AM

Post #4 of 13 (865 views)

Permalink

>Now things have changed; millions
>of people use Wikipedia every month and expect it to be accurate. Requiring references helps us
>attain higher quality.
>
>
not here ... up to now in a place with 6000 people not one knew
Wikipedia - I am NOT kidding.

>
>
>
>>Come on: let them talk - let's just go ahead working without listening
>>to them doing our best. The day is not far and they will need to stop
>>because Wikipedia will show them that liberty and democracy survives any
>>attack.
>>
>>
>
>We are already famous
>
??? really??? only in a certain part of the world with certain users -
the rest of the world does not even know what a wiki is - nor do they
know what the foundation is.

And I am talking not only about the place where I live (Maiori, Italy)
... I gave a presentation on Wikipedia during a conference in Cracow and
had to start at the very beginning - and found many highly instructed
people asking what that wikipedia was that they find in Google every now
and then on the first place when searching for contents.

>, so bad press is simply bad (esp right before a fund drive). But beyond
>that, this particular incident showed a place where our review system failed and failed badly.
>
>
It is one case ... things have been corrected as soon as the error was
seen ... well, where's the problem? The best answer to such an article
would have been: well if you knew that it was wrong, and you know what
Wikipedia is, why do you make such a huge problem out of this: simply
correct things - you could have done this - so it is not us who are
wrong, but the person who "did not correct" knowing how Wikipedia works
and "officially" believes in equal chances and whatever ... use these
critics in the right way - that's all.

>If we required references, then somebody from RC patrol would have tagged the the offending
>article as unsourced and subject to eventual deletion. That tells readers to not at all trust what
>is in that article and encourages editors to check the article and add references. I see nothing
>wrong with that.
>
>
So now I write about the "Chiesa del Carmine" (Church of the Carmine)
here in Maiori - where there is no official documentation - all I know
is from what people of Maiori told me. It was the place where dead
people after the floods in the 50's were collected ... the first person
who told me this was my mother in law, then I asked some other old
people of the town who confirmed - so this can be believed, but there is
not one ressource that states that it is true. And since this cannot be
proofed to be true with whatever reference it would be deleted. Well,
great ... Wikipedia would have been the first place where to publish
this information - like you request it, it would not be possible - so
first of all I am required to create a book somewhere else ... but this
would then make Wikipedia being not the unique reference for such
information. What about that?

>Like it or not we are being used as a major reference source. Readers rely on us to be accurate.
>Adding references helps us do that.
>
>
Well I like it being used, but it is not used enough - people don't know
Wikipedia. Readers who rely on only one source are not good readers ...
they are blind readers. And what if the references already contain that
error? The reference of the reference?

Hmmm ....

Ciao, Sabine

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Wikipedia ... but where are you going ... (was:Enforcing WP:CITE ...) [ In reply to ]

maveric149 at yahoo

Dec 3, 2005, 7:45 AM

Post #5 of 13 (867 views)

Permalink

--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> When you start *requiring *references, you will move from one side of
> the spectrum to the other end of the spectrum.

Encyclopedias are secondary sources, thus they require primary and other secondary sources for
their information. If the person adding the content used, as they should have, another source for
their information, then asking them to add that piece of meta-data is not much to ask for. It is
in fact good academic practice that should be encouraged.

Saying that that moves us from what we are to something like Nupedia, is, well, completely absurd.
Nupedia pretty much required article authors to have PhDs in the area they were writing for. On
top of that was a 7 step very rigorous peer and copyedit review process. How in the *world* does
requiring references make us like that?

> Having a blind belief in
> references is as bad as not referencing at all.

Evaluating references is also very important, yes. Nobody here is advocating a blind belief in
anything.

> Your ideas about Wikipedia are about the English
> Wikipedia. This is the Foundation mailing list and as a consequence I
> take it that you want to have references on all Wikipedia projects.

See my other email. This requirement would only apply to larger Wikipedias going forward and would
be decided by each wiki's community anyway.

> When we are so famous, why is it that maybe 3% of the Italians know
> Wikipedia ..

And it is OK for the other 97% of Italians to first hear about Wikipedia while reading a very
negative review of it?

> I am sorry but in my opinion this whole thing is too inward looking. You
> do not appreciate the potential fallout of all this.

And fallout from hosing libelous and inaccurate content is OK?

Adding references is not a panacea. But it is a very important part of checking the accuracy of
content.

-- 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

Re: Wikipedia ... but where are you going ... (was:Enforcing WP:CITE ...) [ In reply to ]

sabine_cretella at yahoo

Dec 3, 2005, 8:02 AM

Post #6 of 13 (868 views)

Permalink

>>When we are so famous, why is it that maybe 3% of the Italians know
>>Wikipedia ..
>>
>>
>
>And it is OK for the other 97% of Italians to first hear about Wikipedia while reading a very
>negative review of it?
>
>
>
Well ... if you let negative articles do the marketing ... I do not
allow that ... I do talk to people about wikipedia, I print out
articles, I pass them around, I show them where it is useful, I give
articles to some of the kids that come to me get (printed) articles on
the subject they are studying at school, they take it to their teachers,
friends etc.

Anyone of us can do that - that is positive usage, positive marketing
... but if you believe newspapers who are only in search for scoops and
whatever will help us to become known ... well ...

Do you know of a reporter who likes to write about positive news? These
do not make scoop and do not make the reporter rich ... no ... so we are
the ones who need to be be positive reporters.

The 97% of Italians need to hear from us about wikipedia and not from
others ... and this is the way anywhere in the world.

We are the ones in charge - not newspapers, TV or whatever.

>>I am sorry but in my opinion this whole thing is too inward looking. You
>>do not appreciate the potential fallout of all this.
>>
>>
>
>And fallout from hosing libelous and inaccurate content is OK?
>
>
Well if you mean that any content without reference is inaccurate you
can already delete 97% of the articles that are around ... sorry ... and
this is like saying: people who contribute are inaccurate contributors.

I'd say 99% of all contributors do their best - with or without "adding
references".

>Adding references is not a panacea. But it is a very important part of checking the accuracy of
>content.
>
>
Well: so who likes to check things can go and add references - but
requiring it from anyone will have very negative results ... and this
will mean that many of the people I was just getting on becoming
interested in giving their expertise to Wikipedia will not be there ...
months of work for nothing ... these people have years of expertise,
loads of knowledge, but like me: it will be impossible for them to give
sources since it is expertise that comes from many years of translation
work in different fields. They all, if/when they start, will start with
some kind of stub and need someone to take them by the hand ... the wiki
"language" (tags etc.) are not for anyone and often prevent people from
contributing.

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

Re: Wikipedia ... but where are you going ... (was:Enforcing WP:CITE ...) [ In reply to ]

maveric149 at yahoo

Dec 3, 2005, 8:13 AM

Post #7 of 13 (856 views)

Permalink

--- Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella@yahoo.it> wrote:
> not here ... up to now in a place with 6000 people not one knew
> Wikipedia - I am NOT kidding.

Wikipedia is a top 40 website and the number 1 reference website on the Internet. 13 million
unique visitors used Wikipedia in September of this year. That does not at all include the many
millions more people who use Wikipedia content from hundreds of mirrors. By any measure that makes
Wikipedia famous.

> It is one case ... things have been corrected as soon as the error was
> seen ... well, where's the problem?

The libelous statements remained uncorrected for 4 months and were spread to hundreds of Wikipedia
mirrors. We not only failed to correct the error, but our license allowed it to be spread all over
the Internet.

> The best answer to such an article
> would have been: well if you knew that it was wrong, and you know what
> Wikipedia is, why do you make such a huge problem out of this: simply
> correct things - you could have done this - so it is not us who are
> wrong, but the person who "did not correct" knowing how Wikipedia works
> and "officially" believes in equal chances and whatever ... use these
> critics in the right way - that's all.

SoFixIt is no longer a valid retort for the larger language versions where readers outnumber
editors by over 200 to 1 and the vast, vast, majority of people who use those Wikipedias will
never edit. Again, a sourcing requirement would only be enacted by each wiki community when it
thinks that it is needed. I think it is needed for at least the English Wikipedia.

> So now I write about the "Chiesa del Carmine" (Church of the Carmine)
> here in Maiori - where there is no official documentation - all I know
> is from what people of Maiori told me.

That may or may not be original research. If it is, then it already is not allowed, if it is just
observation or common knowledge in that village, then citing personal correspondence and
unpublished records is perfectly valid when there are no other alternatives. In other words, if a
phone call or visit could confirm the information, then that may in fact be a valid reference.

> Readers who rely on only one source are not good readers ...
> they are blind readers.

I agree and find it odd at how indigent some people get when they find out that any source they
use is wrong. But at the same time we do have a responsibility to make sure we try our best. Good
referencing is a part of that. We also have to take the world as it is, not as we think it should
be. The world is filled with lots of blind readers.

> And what if the references already contain that
> error? The reference of the reference?

Each reference is going to have its own errors. That is why any article written should ideally
have multiple references; common facts between them can be more trusted than facts that disagree.
A good researcher needs to use good references, compare their facts, and find out the truth when
the references disagree.

But none of that work can be done if there are no references to check.

-- mav

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com

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

Re: Wikipedia ... but where are you going ... (was:Enforcing WP:CITE ...) [ In reply to ]

maveric149 at yahoo

Dec 3, 2005, 8:33 AM

Post #8 of 13 (867 views)

Permalink

--- Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella@yahoo.it> wrote:
> Well: so who likes to check things can go and add references -

And how are the people who add references going to know what sources were used to add the content
in the first place? I can't read the mind of others and I don't think many other people can do
that either.

> requiring it from anyone will have very negative results ... and this
> will mean that many of the people I was just getting on becoming
> interested in giving their expertise to Wikipedia will not be there ...
> months of work for nothing ...

I assume you want them to work on the Italian Wikipedia, no? Any referencing requirement would be
decided on a per wiki basis and start with the very largest wikis. Other wikis may still need to
encourage growth in any way they can. So adding such a requirement prematurely may do more harm
than good.

And such a requirement would not prevent anybody from adding unsourced material. It would just
allow people who like to tag things - and boy does at least the English Wikipedia have plenty of
those folks - to tag those articles as needing sources. The tag would serve two roles:
1) Tell readers to treat the article very critically,
2) Tell editors that the article needs references (hopefully the original author will see that and
add the referenes; if not, then others would need to check each fact).
It would also help to encourage a culture of sourcing material that will only help us attain and
retain more accurate content.

Again ; language versions at different stages of development need to follow different policies on
this type of thing. The great majority of wikis will be better served by encouraging growth more
than quality, but the ones that are already huge can afford to be a bit more picky. Once the other
wikis get huge, then they could start to be more picky as well.

-- mav

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com

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

Re: Wikipedia ... but where are you going ... (was:Enforcing WP:CITE ...) [ In reply to ]

saintonge at telus

Dec 3, 2005, 5:02 PM

Post #9 of 13 (870 views)

Permalink

Sabine Cretella wrote:

> Well ... if you let negative articles do the marketing ... I do not
> allow that ... I do talk to people about wikipedia, I print out
> articles, I pass them around, I show them where it is useful, I give
> articles to some of the kids that come to me get (printed) articles on
> the subject they are studying at school, they take it to their
> teachers, friends etc.
>
> Anyone of us can do that - that is positive usage, positive marketing

I would expect that all of us does do that.

> ... but if you believe newspapers who are only in search for scoops
> and whatever will help us to become known ... well ...

> Do you know of a reporter who likes to write about positive news?
> These do not make scoop and do not make the reporter rich ... no ...
> so we are the ones who need to be be positive reporters.

They know about this in the land that invented the word "paparazzi".

Ec

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

Re: Wikipedia ... but where are you going ... (was:Enforcing WP:CITE ...) [ In reply to ]

saintonge at telus

Dec 3, 2005, 5:22 PM

Post #10 of 13 (869 views)

Permalink

Sabine Cretella wrote:

> It is one case ... things have been corrected as soon as the error was
> seen ... well, where's the problem? The best answer to such an article
> would have been: well if you knew that it was wrong, and you know what
> Wikipedia is, why do you make such a huge problem out of this: simply
> correct things - you could have done this - so it is not us who are
> wrong, but the person who "did not correct" knowing how Wikipedia
> works and "officially" believes in equal chances and whatever ... use
> these critics in the right way - that's all.

The individual in question was not particularly notable. It's not
surprising that no-one noticed the problems with the article. The story
is plausible, but who are the people who would read about this guy?

>> Like it or not we are being used as a major reference source. Readers
>> rely on us to be accurate.
>> Adding references helps us do that.
>
> Well I like it being used, but it is not used enough - people don't
> know Wikipedia. Readers who rely on only one source are not good
> readers ... they are blind readers. And what if the references already
> contain that error? The reference of the reference?

To some extent readers have to take responsibility for what they read.
They are not responsible for what is wrong in an article, but they are
responsible for how it affects what they do in their own lives.
Critical thinking is more important now than ever. When the people who
fail to read critically are in positions of power they can end up
starting wars in distant places.

Ec

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

Re: Wikipedia ... but where are you going ... (was:Enforcing WP:CITE ...) [ In reply to ]

saintonge at telus

Dec 3, 2005, 5:34 PM

Post #11 of 13 (858 views)

Permalink

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella@yahoo.it> wrote:
>
>
>>requiring it from anyone will have very negative results ... and this
>>will mean that many of the people I was just getting on becoming
>>interested in giving their expertise to Wikipedia will not be there ...
>>months of work for nothing ...
>>
>>
>Again ; language versions at different stages of development need to follow different policies on
>this type of thing. The great majority of wikis will be better served by encouraging growth more
>than quality, but the ones that are already huge can afford to be a bit more picky. Once the other
>wikis get huge, then they could start to be more picky as well.
>
>
I believe that sourcing should be the norm al all projects, but with
each in its own time and way.

Mav's comments on this topic leave the impression that references do not
matter for many of the rest of us. To the contrary, the one constant
that has tied the people in this thread together is that they believe
that references and citations are a good thing, and are trying to find a
solution that will accomplish this. For some of us it is equally
important that we not forget our roots, and that we not allow a blind
obsession with references to obscure the positive features of the
project.. Let's not be too quick to punish people for failing to add
citations.

Ec

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

Re: Wikipedia ... but where are you going ... (was:Enforcing WP:CITE ...) [ In reply to ]

delirium at hackish

Dec 6, 2005, 5:02 PM

Post #12 of 13 (856 views)

Permalink

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>>It is one case ... things have been corrected as soon as the error was
>>seen ... well, where's the problem?
>>
>>
>
>The libelous statements remained uncorrected for 4 months and were spread to hundreds of Wikipedia
>mirrors. We not only failed to correct the error, but our license allowed it to be spread all over
>the Internet.
>
>
That is not an interesting statement. If you were to claim "...and [x]
people read that article", that would be more interesting. The fact
that an obscure article had misinformation that was not corrected
because virtually nobody ever read the article isn't particularly
worrisome. If we were talking of [[en:Margaret Thatcher]], containing
misinformation for 4 months that thousands of people read, I would be
more worried.

-Mark

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

Re: Wikipedia ... but where are you going ... (was:Enforcing WP:CITE ...) [ In reply to ]

delirium at hackish

Dec 6, 2005, 5:04 PM

Post #13 of 13 (864 views)

Permalink

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>And such a requirement would not prevent anybody from adding unsourced material. It would just
>allow people who like to tag things - and boy does at least the English Wikipedia have plenty of
>those folks - to tag those articles as needing sources. The tag would serve two roles:
>1) Tell readers to treat the article very critically,
>
>
Why does this need a tag? Cannot a read see for themselves whether or
not an article has references? Or are we assuming our readers are
idiots who accept everything uncritically unless explicitly told not to?

-Mark

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