Mailing List Archive

On 03/10/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:

> As Erik pointed out, it is very easy to make a hoax seem legitimate if you
> cite a phony print source. What's not needed is new rules involving the use
> of print sources, but to utilise something we had all along: Google.
> Something we could do is Google the title of the book being referenced, and
> then see if it exists (beyond being mentioned in wiki mirrors). If it
> doesn't exist, then we take further action. One thing we could do is for
> every print source approved in an article, we can note that said print
> sources have been verified to be true on the talk page (via some sort of
> yellow talk page box). Comments?


I use lotsa references that aren't in Google and probably never will
be (e.g. for indie rock). There's a whole world between 1923 and 1995
in that category.

A list could be nice, of course.


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

For those books not mentioned in Google, we would of course do our best to
compile a list. Then once the list is made, knowing Google, it would only be
a matter of time that the list of old books would be listed on Google,
therefore making my testing mechanism work.

If we were to compile a list of these books, we'd probably have to protect
these pages from editing to prevent misuse/fraud.

On 10/3/06, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/10/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As Erik pointed out, it is very easy to make a hoax seem legitimate if
> you
> > cite a phony print source. What's not needed is new rules involving the
> use
> > of print sources, but to utilise something we had all along: Google.
> > Something we could do is Google the title of the book being referenced,
> and
> > then see if it exists (beyond being mentioned in wiki mirrors). If it
> > doesn't exist, then we take further action. One thing we could do is for
> > every print source approved in an article, we can note that said print
> > sources have been verified to be true on the talk page (via some sort of
> > yellow talk page box). Comments?
>
>
> I use lotsa references that aren't in Google and probably never will
> be (e.g. for indie rock). There's a whole world between 1923 and 1995
> in that category.
>
> A list could be nice, of course.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Even if that print source exists, it doesn't mean that that print
source really supports my "sourced" statement... If I really need to
source my fake article to prevent it from being speedy deleted, I
could just source any random real book... So this doesn't solve the
whole problem.

--Lorenzarius

On 10/4/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> As Erik pointed out, it is very easy to make a hoax seem legitimate if you
> cite a phony print source. What's not needed is new rules involving the use
> of print sources, but to utilise something we had all along: Google.
> Something we could do is Google the title of the book being referenced, and
> then see if it exists (beyond being mentioned in wiki mirrors). If it
> doesn't exist, then we take further action. One thing we could do is for
> every print source approved in an article, we can note that said print
> sources have been verified to be true on the talk page (via some sort of
> yellow talk page box). Comments?
>
> --James
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lorenzarius
Tel: +852 95825791
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

There is only one way to *ensure* the veracity of
articles based on print sources, and that is fact
checking. Any shortcuts to fact checking can be
gamed. Of course, you can make the game harder than
it currently is, but if you are aiming for 100% no
hoaxes making them harder to recognize will not help
IMHO.


Birgitte SB

--- James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:

> For those books not mentioned in Google, we would of
> course do our best to
> compile a list. Then once the list is made, knowing
> Google, it would only be
> a matter of time that the list of old books would be
> listed on Google,
> therefore making my testing mechanism work.
>
> If we were to compile a list of these books, we'd
> probably have to protect
> these pages from editing to prevent misuse/fraud.
>
> On 10/3/06, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 03/10/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > As Erik pointed out, it is very easy to make a
> hoax seem legitimate if
> > you
> > > cite a phony print source. What's not needed is
> new rules involving the
> > use
> > > of print sources, but to utilise something we
> had all along: Google.
> > > Something we could do is Google the title of the
> book being referenced,
> > and
> > > then see if it exists (beyond being mentioned in
> wiki mirrors). If it
> > > doesn't exist, then we take further action. One
> thing we could do is for
> > > every print source approved in an article, we
> can note that said print
> > > sources have been verified to be true on the
> talk page (via some sort of
> > > yellow talk page box). Comments?
> >
> >
> > I use lotsa references that aren't in Google and
> probably never will
> > be (e.g. for indie rock). There's a whole world
> between 1923 and 1995
> > in that category.
> >
> > A list could be nice, of course.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> >
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/3/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> As Erik pointed out, it is very easy to make a hoax seem legitimate if you
> cite a phony print source. What's not needed is new rules involving the use
> of print sources, but to utilise something we had all along: Google.
> Something we could do is Google the title of the book being referenced, and
> then see if it exists (beyond being mentioned in wiki mirrors). If it
> doesn't exist, then we take further action. One thing we could do is for
> every print source approved in an article, we can note that said print
> sources have been verified to be true on the talk page (via some sort of
> yellow talk page box). Comments?
Hi,

I've followed closely the thread about verifying content and citing
(book) sources.

My comment would be that obviously not all (book) sources that have
even been proven to exist are credible and reputable.

As I am a believer in "Work through WikiProjects" motto I think
WikiProjects could prepare lists of reputable printed sources in
different fields and eventually (dis)qualify a given source.

In my opinion we need more WikiProjects that are vivacious and full of
"experts". All dubious Wikipedia content should be directed towards
WikiProjects for verification.

Best regards,
Kpjas.

--
Wikipedia - World's Greatest http://www.wikipedia.org
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> WikiProjects could prepare lists of reputable
> printed sources in
> different fields and eventually (dis)qualify a given
> source.

Sound like "L'indice dei libri proibiti", the list of
forbidden books that catholic church used for
centuries.
It became famous for considering unreliable and wicked
books from authors like Honoré de Balzac, Cartesio,
Daniel Defoe, Denis Diderot, Victor Hugo, Immanuel
Kant, Voltaire, Émile Zola (and many others), thus
forbidding them. ... Yours seems to me a optimistic
dream hard to make true.

> In my opinion we need more WikiProjects that are
> vivacious and full of
> "experts". All dubious Wikipedia content should be
> directed towards
> WikiProjects for verification.

Plus, will these guys from the wikiprojects be able to
be both expert AND npov? Or will they give their
opinion in all the matters in wich there isn't just
*true* way to solve the problem?

Please note that mine are just questions, I'm not
polemizing for the sake of it...

Tinette

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Poco spazio e tanto spam? Yahoo! Mail ti protegge dallo spam e ti da tanto spazio gratuito per i tuoi file e i messaggi
http://mail.yahoo.it
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Some of this can be done by checking the ISBN. If it exists, the ISBN
should be mentioned. If it is there, it can be checked. We had several
cases with fake ISBNs which led to the discovery of fake articles.

Philipp

2006/10/5, Valentina Faussone <valentina_faussone@yahoo.it>:
> > WikiProjects could prepare lists of reputable
> > printed sources in
> > different fields and eventually (dis)qualify a given
> > source.
>
> Sound like "L'indice dei libri proibiti", the list of
> forbidden books that catholic church used for
> centuries.
> It became famous for considering unreliable and wicked
> books from authors like Honoré de Balzac, Cartesio,
> Daniel Defoe, Denis Diderot, Victor Hugo, Immanuel
> Kant, Voltaire, Émile Zola (and many others), thus
> forbidding them. ... Yours seems to me a optimistic
> dream hard to make true.
>
> > In my opinion we need more WikiProjects that are
> > vivacious and full of
> > "experts". All dubious Wikipedia content should be
> > directed towards
> > WikiProjects for verification.
>
> Plus, will these guys from the wikiprojects be able to
> be both expert AND npov? Or will they give their
> opinion in all the matters in wich there isn't just
> *true* way to solve the problem?
>
> Please note that mine are just questions, I'm not
> polemizing for the sake of it...
>
> Tinette
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Poco spazio e tanto spam? Yahoo! Mail ti protegge dallo spam e ti da tanto
> spazio gratuito per i tuoi file e i messaggi
> http://mail.yahoo.it
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 05/10/06, P. Birken <pbirken@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some of this can be done by checking the ISBN. If it exists, the ISBN
> should be mentioned. If it is there, it can be checked. We had several
> cases with fake ISBNs which led to the discovery of fake articles.

Bear in mind that the average moderately-obscure English-lanugage book
has at least two ISBNs, four is very common, and cases of several
dozen are known. Requiring an ISBN is in many ways misleadingly
precise...

(but I concur that a broken ISBN is a good trap for silliness)

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 03/10/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> For those books not mentioned in Google, we would of course do our best to
> compile a list. Then once the list is made, knowing Google, it would only be
> a matter of time that the list of old books would be listed on Google,
> therefore making my testing mechanism work.

It would be simpler just to toss the name into copac.ac.uk or
catalog.loc.gov and see if it appears! But this still doesn't tell us
anything beyond "I am claiming this book supports me".

It still doesn't get past the fact that I belive David when he says
"This band does indeed appear on page seventeen of Australian Indie
Rock Monthly, August 1979", but am slightly less inclined to believe
the unknown chap claiming he's found something earthshattering in a
1937 issue of a Russian underground newspaper...

Fundamentally, use of an offline (or subscription, etc) source is a
good and sensible thing, but it requires a modicum of trust that we're
getting a reliable link between the page and the information quoted;
we can't get around this by preparing lists of reliable and unreliable
texts, we can only get around this by someone "trusted" saying yes,
I've looked at that, it's there.

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- Valentina Faussone <valentina_faussone@yahoo.it>
wrote:

> > WikiProjects could prepare lists of reputable
> > printed sources in
> > different fields and eventually (dis)qualify a
> given
> > source.
>
> Sound like "L'indice dei libri proibiti", the list
> of
> forbidden books that catholic church used for
> centuries.
> It became famous for considering unreliable and
> wicked
> books from authors like Honoré de Balzac, Cartesio,
> Daniel Defoe, Denis Diderot, Victor Hugo, Immanuel
> Kant, Voltaire, Émile Zola (and many others), thus
> forbidding them. ... Yours seems to me a optimistic
> dream hard to make true.
>
> > In my opinion we need more WikiProjects that are
> > vivacious and full of
> > "experts". All dubious Wikipedia content should be
> > directed towards
> > WikiProjects for verification.
>
> Plus, will these guys from the wikiprojects be able
> to
> be both expert AND npov? Or will they give their
> opinion in all the matters in wich there isn't just
> *true* way to solve the problem?
>
> Please note that mine are just questions, I'm not
> polemizing for the sake of it...
>
> Tinette

I agree these are good questions for an ambititous
project. I do not think there are easy answers. I
really think it is premature to rely so heavily on
Wikiprojects ability as experts as well as being
neutral. They are not matured enough yet, but maybe
some day we will be able to do this. Perhaps a good
question for right now is how could we identify a
Wikiproject which has matured to such a level? How
can we encourage Wikiprojects to develop into
something we can put so much trust in?


Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Andrew Gray wrote:

> Requiring an ISBN is in many ways misleadingly precise...

Is this a strawman argument? Is anybody requiring ISBNs today?

Since many books don't have ISBNs, always requiring an ISBN would
be misguided. But giving ISBNs should in general be encouraged.

ISBNs are very useful, even if they aren't unique identifiers for
a source. The same source, or an equally good source, such as
later editions or translations of the same book, can have many
different ISBNs. Often times, a page number (as given in the
{{cite book}} template), are relevant only with one ISBN, since
later editions or translations might offset the pagination.

Detailed and correct bibliographic references don't guarantee that
the cited source supports the reported facts, but it makes it so
much easier to look it up.


--
Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/5/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Valentina Faussone <valentina_faussone@yahoo.it>
> wrote:
>
> > > WikiProjects could prepare lists of reputable
> > > printed sources in
> > > different fields and eventually (dis)qualify a
> > given
> > > source.
> >
> > Sound like "L'indice dei libri proibiti", the list
> > of
> > forbidden books that catholic church used for
> > centuries.
> > It became famous for considering unreliable and
> > wicked
> > books from authors like Honoré de Balzac, Cartesio,
> > Daniel Defoe, Denis Diderot, Victor Hugo, Immanuel
> > Kant, Voltaire, Émile Zola (and many others), thus
> > forbidding them. ... Yours seems to me a optimistic
> > dream hard to make true.
> >
> > > In my opinion we need more WikiProjects that are
> > > vivacious and full of
> > > "experts". All dubious Wikipedia content should be
> > > directed towards
> > > WikiProjects for verification.
> >
> > Plus, will these guys from the wikiprojects be able
> > to
> > be both expert AND npov? Or will they give their
> > opinion in all the matters in wich there isn't just
> > *true* way to solve the problem?
> >
> > Please note that mine are just questions, I'm not
> > polemizing for the sake of it...
> >
> > Tinette
>
> I agree these are good questions for an ambititous
> project. I do not think there are easy answers. I
> really think it is premature to rely so heavily on
> Wikiprojects ability as experts as well as being
> neutral. They are not matured enough yet, but maybe
> some day we will be able to do this. Perhaps a good
> question for right now is how could we identify a
> Wikiproject which has matured to such a level? How
> can we encourage Wikiprojects to develop into
> something we can put so much trust in?

I personally don't think we could have problems with WikiProjects as
POV pushers. They are managing hundreds/thousands of articles already
and we don't see any POV problems
(do you agree?) Something to be wary of is scientific/expertly/group
bias that can creep in at some point.

WikiProjects could in a longer perspective become valuable in many
respects, especially content quality and verification. Perhaps a kind
of interWikiProject Workgroups might be needed for interdisciplinary.

Some WikiProjects like Biography are bustling with activity, I'm not
sure about others and some WikiProjects have turned inactive. I hope
WikiProject Council will become a means for organising and promoting
new WikiProjects as well as expanding/invigorating existing ones.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_WikiProjects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council

Regards,
Kpjas.

--
Wikipedia - World's Greatest http://www.wikipedia.org
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- Andrew Gray <shimgray@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 06/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net>
> wrote:
> > Andrew Gray wrote:
> >
> > >On 03/10/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > >It would be simpler just to toss the name into
> copac.ac.uk or
> > >catalog.loc.gov and see if it appears! But this
> still doesn't tell us
> > >anything beyond "I am claiming this book supports
> me".
> > >
> > Absolutely! And that claim is only sometimes a
> hoax. It can as easily
> > be a good-faith misinterpretation of the
> information.
>
> But of course.
>
> The problem is, the original proposal here was to
> deal with people
> making up sources - an explicitly bad-faith action.
> But the suggested
> system is a system that is equally suceptible to
> being gamed in
> bad-faith. You want to game this? You make a false
> claim with regards
> to a reputable (but hard to identify) work. Done.
>
> So instituting this system wouldn't deal with the
> bad-faith people in
> any way, and just create vast amounts of (admittedly
> automatible, but
> still) make-work for "verifiers". Which doesn't
> really help the
> project, it just plasters around the original
> problem...


So you do not believe in having any organized method
of fact checking? That people should only fact check
disputed articles? I am not sure what your position
is after reading the above.

I think at some point an organized method of fact
checking needs to happen, although it is debatable if
we are at that point yet. My understanding of this
method is it would assign fact checkers work "per
book" rather than "per article" which is IMHO *much*
more efficient. And on top of that it would have an
internal check to discover any person who is not
really doing the checking. And making fact-checking
so divorced from article creation should also
eliminate alot of non-nuetral people from the process.
Of course fact checking is only the first step in
verifing an article, but any efforts along these lines
is an improvement over where we stand today.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 08/10/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:


> But of course.
> >
> > The problem is, the original proposal here was to
> > deal with people
> > making up sources - an explicitly bad-faith action.
> > But the suggested
> > system is a system that is equally suceptible to
> > being gamed in
> > bad-faith. You want to game this? You make a false
> > claim with regards
> > to a reputable (but hard to identify) work. Done.
> >
> > So instituting this system wouldn't deal with the
> > bad-faith people in
> > any way, and just create vast amounts of (admittedly
> > automatible, but
> > still) make-work for "verifiers". Which doesn't
> > really help the
> > project, it just plasters around the original
> > problem...
>
>
> So you do not believe in having any organized method
> of fact checking? That people should only fact check
> disputed articles? I am not sure what your position
> is after reading the above.

My position is that the proposal originally suggested in this thread -
of confirming the existence of books so as to deal with bad-faith fake
sources - just won't work, because it means a good deal of work but is
trivially easy for the people who we assume are trying to fool us to
keep fooling us. We need fact checking. But having a system that
sounds like fact checking and looks like fact checking but doesn't
work is a net detriment.

> I think at some point an organized method of fact
> checking needs to happen, although it is debatable if
> we are at that point yet. My understanding of this
> method is it would assign fact checkers work "per
> book" rather than "per article" which is IMHO *much*
> more efficient.

Yes, this would be the most sensible way of doing it. We just need to
find some way of apportioning the checking load in a sane manner.

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Birgitte SB wrote:
>
> --- Jonathan Leybovich <jleybov@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes, a blind-vote citation-checking system in which
>>aggregate results
>>are captured.
[snip]
>>
>>I think it might also be useful to use the results
>>of citation-checking
>>as a feed into some sort of trust ecology.
>>Fact-checking is mostly
>>tedious, unrewarding work, and so the users who have
>>shown themselves to
>>be competent and reliable at it are probably going
>>to be trustworthy or
>>at least good-faith in other areas as well. This
>>would of course not be
>>the only input to a user's "trust rating", but
>>probably one of the more
>>significant ones.
>>
>>
>
> I think this is an absolutely brilliant idea!
>
> Birgitte SB

Thank you :) A lot of the work required for such a system I've already
done while beginning to implement my proposal for a central
bibliographic database- [[m:Wikicat]]- and it could just as well be
adopted to your more efficient source/book-driven fact checking regimen.
If some sort of hosting/demo testbed were provided (*ahem*) it would
not take me that long to whip up a basic demo.

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

Andrew Gray wrote:
>
>
> My position is that the proposal originally suggested in this thread -
> of confirming the existence of books so as to deal with bad-faith fake
> sources - just won't work, because it means a good deal of work but is
> trivially easy for the people who we assume are trying to fool us to
> keep fooling us. We need fact checking. But having a system that
> sounds like fact checking and looks like fact checking but doesn't
> work is a net detriment.
>

Almost every system of security relies on countermeasures that are- not
invulnerable- but only cost more for the attacker to breach than are
worth the effort of breaking. Outrageous claims that contradict common
knowledge or sense are going to be scrutinized and weeded out anyway,
source or no source. And so what we really have here is the possibility
of bad-faith editors introducing fabricated citations to support, at
worst, moderately false assertions. There are various levels of
automatic validation that could be done at the time the citation is
created using data from open bibliographic databases- from checking
whether the book is of an appropriate subject and that the page cited
falls within the book's pagination range to more involved CAPTCHA-like
challenges such as: Where was the book published? and: What is the
highest Roman numeral used in the preface? This is only moderately
easier for an owner of the source to verify (and indeed, bad-faith
owners could own the source in question anyway), but it quickly becomes
for trouble than it's worth for the citation creator if their only
motivation is mischief. Before introducing countermeasures we need to
determine where that threshold actually lies and so avoid introducing
more hoops for good-faith editors to jump through than are absolutely
necessary.

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

Kpjas wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've followed closely the thread about verifying content and citing
> (book) sources.
>
> My comment would be that obviously not all (book) sources that have
> even been proven to exist are credible and reputable.
>
> As I am a believer in "Work through WikiProjects" motto I think
> WikiProjects could prepare lists of reputable printed sources in
> different fields and eventually (dis)qualify a given source.
>
> In my opinion we need more WikiProjects that are vivacious and full of
> "experts". All dubious Wikipedia content should be directed towards
> WikiProjects for verification.
>
>

This brings up an important issue- that of source criticism. A
nominally accurate citation is still not worth much if the underlying
source is not authoritative in the field. This can be measured, though,
by starting to map the authority relationships within a literature,
capturing not only how many citations are made of a particular work, but
also what TYPE:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTextrose#Citation_Analysis

For example, a work that is cited dozens of times is not necessarily
more authoritative than one that is cited less frequently if more than
half of those citations are negative and attack its claims. Building
such a database would allow non-experts to quickly orient themselves to
what is state-of-the-literature and act without the oversight of
WikiProject experts (not to mention create a resource that, in time,
could be very useful in its own right). Not that such WikiProjects
could not be useful as well, only that they are inherently non-scalable,
and certainly more inegalitarian in their effect than I think is
necessary- elevating certain users to the role of oracle rather than mentor.

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

--- Andrew Gray <shimgray@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08/10/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > But of course.
> > >
> > > The problem is, the original proposal here was
> to
> > > deal with people
> > > making up sources - an explicitly bad-faith
> action.
> > > But the suggested
> > > system is a system that is equally suceptible to
> > > being gamed in
> > > bad-faith. You want to game this? You make a
> false
> > > claim with regards
> > > to a reputable (but hard to identify) work.
> Done.
> > >
> > > So instituting this system wouldn't deal with
> the
> > > bad-faith people in
> > > any way, and just create vast amounts of
> (admittedly
> > > automatible, but
> > > still) make-work for "verifiers". Which doesn't
> > > really help the
> > > project, it just plasters around the original
> > > problem...
> >
> >
> > So you do not believe in having any organized
> method
> > of fact checking? That people should only fact
> check
> > disputed articles? I am not sure what your
> position
> > is after reading the above.
>
> My position is that the proposal originally
> suggested in this thread -
> of confirming the existence of books so as to deal
> with bad-faith fake
> sources - just won't work, because it means a good
> deal of work but is
> trivially easy for the people who we assume are
> trying to fool us to
> keep fooling us. We need fact checking. But having a
> system that
> sounds like fact checking and looks like fact
> checking but doesn't
> work is a net detriment.
>

Either you misread the proposal or I did. Or else
this message was not in the part of the thread I
thought it was. Because I certainly believed we were
talking about actual fact-chaecking. Not simply
corfirming that sources exist.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/10/06, Jonathan Leybovich wrote:
> Kpjas wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've followed closely the thread about verifying content and citing
> > (book) sources.
> >
> > My comment would be that obviously not all (book) sources that have
> > even been proven to exist are credible and reputable.
> >
> > As I am a believer in "Work through WikiProjects" motto I think
> > WikiProjects could prepare lists of reputable printed sources in
> > different fields and eventually (dis)qualify a given source.
> >
> > In my opinion we need more WikiProjects that are vivacious and full of
> > "experts". All dubious Wikipedia content should be directed towards
> > WikiProjects for verification.
> >
> >
>
> This brings up an important issue- that of source criticism. A
> nominally accurate citation is still not worth much if the underlying
> source is not authoritative in the field. This can be measured, though,
> by starting to map the authority relationships within a literature,
> capturing not only how many citations are made of a particular work, but
> also what TYPE:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTextrose#Citation_Analysis
>
> For example, a work that is cited dozens of times is not necessarily
> more authoritative than one that is cited less frequently if more than
> half of those citations are negative and attack its claims. Building
> such a database would allow non-experts to quickly orient themselves to
> what is state-of-the-literature and act without the oversight of
> WikiProject experts (not to mention create a resource that, in time,
> could be very useful in its own right).

Very interesting ideas. But how to make them doable ? It'll require a
significant effort and determination.

> Not that such WikiProjects
> could not be useful as well, only that they are inherently non-scalable,
> and certainly more inegalitarian in their effect than I think is
> necessary- elevating certain users to the role of oracle rather than mentor.

I believe our experts that have been in the project for a long time
had somehow to come to terms with getting along with regular users.
They know to to take part in a WikiProject in a sensible way - showing
and arguing their arguments with scientific expertise and not
preaching ex cathedra.

I think that openness is a feature that is of fundamental importance
for Wikipedia and a vital part of the success. There's a place for
everyone who wants to cooperate with others in a civil and
constructive way. Only that experts and academics who want to join in
have usually hard time establishing themselves in the project.
I was wondering how WikiProjects could remain egalitarian and operate
in a wiki-way and at the same time work out ways to embrace "our"
experts and try to reach out to external experts as well.

Regards,
Kpjas.

--
http://kpjas.p5.org.uk/ http://kpjas.blogsome.com/
Wikipedia - World's Greatest http://www.wikipedia.org
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l