[WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
160 messages Options
1 ... 5678
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Ray Saintonge
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>You are advocating the complete abandonment of the principles that
>>underly Wikipedia.
>>
>>"You can edit this page right now." That's the mantra. That's the
>>key. That's what got us where we are. It's foolish to give up on the
>>thing that made us succeed where other things (Nupedia) failed.
>>    
>>
>The key underlying principle is making a free encyclopedia available
>to everyone. "Anyone can edit" is simply a means to an end - it is
>secondary to the goal of making an encyclopedia.
>
>We should be working to make things better for the readers, not the
>contributors. Relaxing our rules on using reliable sources would be
>great for the contributors, but makes the website pretty much useless
>for the readers.
>
Whether this makes sense depends on how you envision the reader.  The
endgame of "Anyone can edit" is "Everyone can edit". At that point the
reader and the contributor are synonymous.  In our goal of making an
encyclopedia we are also revolutionizing the notion of an encyclopedia.  
Our encyclopedia is not just the passive paper encyclopedia of old where
the reader could look through a chosen article, and be sated with what
he took in.  We want readers who will think critically and will leave
with questions instead of answers.

I would question the consumerist model of an encyclopedia.  We need to
remember that that model was based on a circumstance where the means of
production were not readily available to the users.  A simple reversal
of that circumstance is having far reaching effects.  We can now
consider options that the technology did not allow us to consider
before.  No "fact" is beyond question, and we cannot allow ourselves to
be lulled into the false security that having a source means that all's
well with the 'pedia.  The editors who will do best are those with the
skill to thrive in uncertainty, and who perhaps have come to terms with
the theology of the trickster.

Ec


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
George Herbert wrote:

>On 1/25/07, Bogdan Giusca <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>From my experience on Wikipedia, unsourced articles are very unreliable
>>and may have plenty of wrong facts. Most of thse wrong facts are not
>>added due to malice (though that is not uncommon), but they were
>>added by people either from their (inevitable unreliable) memories,
>>from blogs and forums, which, on average have an awful lack of
>>accuracy or they are simply misinterpretations.
>>    
>>
>From my experience with Wikipedia, unsourced articles are generally
>very accurate and moderately precise.  When I find them in areas for
>which I'm familiar with the body of knowledge and reliable sources, I
>will spend time to go find the appropriate citations and sources as
>time allows, to "back up" the already existing content with
>appropriate references.
>
Time spent doing this is far more productive than time spent complaining
about what others don't do.

Ec


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>Citations, fact checking, and minor corrections are EXCELLENT things
>>to leave for others, or for later review by yourself.
>>    
>>
>
>Leaving citations for someone else is complete nonsense. It shows that
>you didn't understand the paragraph of mine you quoted. A citation
>says where you got the source from. If you write and article, and then
>I come along, I have no idea where you got the source from, it is
>impossible for me to add the citation. I can add a link to somewhere
>that says the same thing, but that's not citing sources, because
>whatever I link to probably wasn't actually the source. Me adding
>sources to your article is basically me rewriting the article - your
>work becomes nothing more than copyediting that happened to be done
>before I wrote the article (and yes, that doesn't make sense - that's
>the point I'm trying to make).
>
We are a tertiary resource.  If two Wikipedians used different sources
to arrive at the same place it makes no difference in the way that it
would for a secondary source.  Your argument is just strange.  It seems
to make the specific source more important than the information itself.

Ec


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Michael Hopcroft
Michael Hopcroft wrote:

>Phil Sandifer wrote:
>  
>
>>Susan does 90% of the work. The hardcore do about 10% of the work, a  
>>lot of which is cleaning up after Susan. But that's still a massive  
>>net amount of work being done by Susan. Who does not show up on this  
>>mailing list to offer her viewpoint, which is why we need to take  
>>care to stop and think about Susan (and, of course, the other  
>>thousands of casual editors.)  
>>    
>>
>It is probably time we recognized that the very concept of Wikipedia --
>"An encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that will become the best
>encyclopedia in the world" is utterly self-contradictory and therefore
>impossible to achieve.
>
>To exclude "Susan" would defeat the purpose of Wikipedia. To NOT exclude
>"Susan" would ALSO defeat the purpose of Wikipedia.
>
>There is no way to use a rational means to achieve an irrational goal.
>
I'm happy to see that you get it.  There's no rule in life that says
that everything must be rational.  Let's keep looking for the best way
to live with this paradox.

Ec


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Philip Sandifer-2
In reply to this post by Stan Shebs-2


On Jan 26, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:

> Phil Sandifer wrote:
>>
>> I picked those examples precisely because there weren't good or
>> usable textbooks for them. (Or, at least, I asked a random chemistry
>> grad student I had nearby for two topics that would fit that bill and
>> that's what she gave me. Damned if I know what the hell group theory
>> is.)
>>
> Group theory is math, and I personally have three textbooks left over
> from my younger days, any of which would be quite suitable. Perhaps  
> the
> grad student was wishing for one that tied into crystallography
> applications better. :-)

Knowing the grad student well enough to be marrying her in the fall,  
yes, I would assume that she was looking for an article on that  
aspect of group theory. :)

-Phil
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>There are more citations per article in Wikipedia than in Brittanica.
>>Is Brittanica an unreliable source?
>>    
>>
>We know who wrote Britannica. We can (or at least, should be able to -
>let's not get into a discussion about the actual reliability of
>Britannica) trust that their authors really do know what they're
>talking about, and even if they are writing from memory, their memory
>is more reliable than that of a random Wikipedia user we know nothing
>about. (Not necessarily more accurate, but it is more reliable.)
>
I think the term for what you say is "double standard".  Are Wikipedia
editors really that much more prone to Alzheimer's?

Ec


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

George William Herbert
On 1/26/07, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> >>There are more citations per article in Wikipedia than in Brittanica.
> >>Is Brittanica an unreliable source?
> >>
> >>
> >We know who wrote Britannica. We can (or at least, should be able to -
> >let's not get into a discussion about the actual reliability of
> >Britannica) trust that their authors really do know what they're
> >talking about, and even if they are writing from memory, their memory
> >is more reliable than that of a random Wikipedia user we know nothing
> >about. (Not necessarily more accurate, but it is more reliable.)
> >
> I think the term for what you say is "double standard".  Are Wikipedia
> editors really that much more prone to Alzheimer's?

It's fair to point out that WP editors aren't vetted experts.

Even vetted experts make mistakes, as the accuracy research indicates
with Britannica.

That is actually the one thing that I'd say pretty much answers the
ultimate question here - WP's existing methods, and existing editors,
produced content which was independently measured to be comparably
accurate to the work of selected, vetted experts.

All of the complaints about our process fundamentally don't change
that the result has been a success.


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

geni
In reply to this post by The Cunctator
On 1/26/07, The Cunctator <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I think it was used at the start of day one since it was the first
> > thing jimbo could get his hands on.
>
>
> Old-timer.

You pre-date me.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

The Cunctator
On 1/26/07, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 1/26/07, The Cunctator <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > I think it was used at the start of day one since it was the first
> > > thing jimbo could get his hands on.
> >
> >
> > Old-timer.
>
> You pre-date me.


Oh, you're relying on the histories. I only got to Wikipedia around June
2001; the flag wasn't around by then.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
George Herbert wrote:

>My concern is that "the average reader" will be overwhelmed by it.
>There's a reason that there's a spectrum of writing, from informal
>blogs, to popular magazines and newspapers, more formal magazines,
>expert magazines, professional journals, and then things like PhD
>thesies and the like.  Most normal people stop reading a paragraph or
>less into the type of article that you see in professional journals.
>The style and info density is not something they want to deal with.
>Compare and contrast "Popular Science", "Scientific American" and
>"Nature" (or worse, a less-overview specialist journal in any field).
>
>Somewhere between PopSci and Scientific American tends to be at what I
>suspect "the right level" is for Wikipedia, though the articles in the
>latter are generally longer than ours should be.
>
>This will vary wildly from field to field and topic to topic.  All
>generalizations are false.  8-)
>
It is ironic to observe that the relative roles of "Popular Science" and
"Scientific American" are reversed from what they were in the 19th
century.  At that time "Scientific American" was emphasizing newsy
reports on new inventions that were going through the US Patent Office;
"Popular Science" was producing long thoughtful articles about
significant questions in science.  The 1873-4 series of articles by
[[John Stallo]], "The Priimary Concepts of Modern Physical Science" is
only one example in a magazine that is far diffeent from what we know today.

Ec


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by The Cunctator
The Cunctator wrote:

>On 1/26/07, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>On 1/26/07, Omegatron <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On 1/25/07, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>New York Times uses with permission for New York Times only. We don't.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>"We did", you mean.
>>>      
>>>
>>I tend to deal with how things are. We also once allowed unlimited
>>reverts and had the US flag as our logo what of it?
>>    
>>
>We never allowed edit wars.
>
>The US flag as our logo?
>
>Wha?
>
I don't remember that either, but then I've only been here for five years.

Ec


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Stan Shebs-2
Stan Shebs wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>Stan Shebs wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Phil Sandifer wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>If Susan can make the edit from memory, we're good. But if Susan has  
>>>>to go Google the fact to find it somewhere else, we're already losing  
>>>>precious seconds of Susan's time.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>But how does that work out overall, when you save seconds of Susan's
>>>time, and cost me a half-hour of research to figure out why an article
>>>is inconsistent with all the ones it links with? Scholarship is tricky
>>>enough on its own, we don't need to make it harder by mixing in a bunch
>>>of random half-remembered bits.
>>>      
>>>
>>This is one of those half-empty or half-full kinds of arguments.  
>>Without Susan's edit her idea might never have been raised.  What she
>>sees as half-full you see as half-empty.  You evidently enjoyed your
>>half-hour of research, or you would not have done it.  The point that
>>she made was worth that much of your time.  At least you researched it.  
>>The one who simply dismisses her comments out of hand and without
>>comment is really committing the same error that she did.
>>    
>>
>That's not a very good line of reasoning - vandalism sprees must also be
>good things, because we spend a lot of time cleaning up after them, so
>we must be enjoying doing so? I don't think so.
>
Vandalism sprees, which are need to spread the same kind of stupidity
across a number of articles to be efficient, are quite different in
character from a newbie's efforts.  A simple review of Susan's edit
history should reveal that.

>No, when I clean up
>after someone who didn't take the trouble to find out if a statement is
>actually true, that person has just wasted my time.
>
You have the choice between cleaning up, advising someone else, or doing
nothing.

>I used to watch a
>lot of articles (19,000 at the high point), and it was multiple hours of
>drudgery each day; eventually I cleared the list.
>
It seems that by doing so you made a great contribution to your own
personal well-being. :-)

>Casual editors adding
>bad material from memory is actually a worse problem for good articles
>than vandalism, because it's good-faith and often looks plausible; it
>can get by you and mislead readers for months, and worse, start seeping
>into connected articles as others "correct" them to be consistent.
>
That risk is definitely there.  By the same token the editor who takes
unsourced material from one Wikipedia article, and injects it into
another article as "corrections" is just as guilty of adding unsourced
material as the original editor.

Ec


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Steve Block-3
Steve Block wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>Steve Block wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Phil Sandifer wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>We should nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]. They are not working. They  
>>>>have never worked. It is not a feasible project to go and add sources  
>>>>to everything, and new contributors who are editing casually are  
>>>>never going to be willing to do the extra work of having sources. The  
>>>>result is a rule where we are always going to be playing catch-up.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>In all honesty if that happens I will probably walk.  
>>>      
>>>
>>The problem with this kind of argument as the very first one in a series
>>of comments is that it makes me feel blackmailed by whatever follows.
>>    
>>
>The problem with this line of argument is that it doesn't develop the
>debate in a fruitful manner.  My suggestion would be to either ignore
>the comment or to consider it in the context of the posted subject
>header.  However, I am terribly sorry for the offence it caused, and for
>reacting emotively to Phil's suggestion and conveying the level of my
>reaction.  Maybe I'll move to a list where people don't make me feel
>like a retard simply for posting my opinion.
>
I don't know if offence was the right word for the way I reacted, but I
certainly accept your apology in the spirit in which it was intended.  
Ignoring the rest of that message was as much as could reasonably be
done in the circumstances.  I would not have applied this to later messages.

Ec


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
Phil Sandifer wrote:

>MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>  
>
>>If people cited their sources in the first place, there wouldn't be any
>>abuse by people using that fact to get it deleted. Any abuse with these
>>policies can be prevented if people just made the effort. I think  
>>I'm going to reread those pages and think about rewriting them.
>>    
>>
>But this is one of the problems. The burden of citing everything is  
>larger than our editors, especially our casual editors, are willing  
>to undertake. We will never reach a point where people will cite  
>their sources in the first place. Hence the prospect of eternally  
>playing catch-up.
>
The situation is a fact of life that I'm prepared to live with.  This
does not change the ideal of having well sourced articles.  It only
accepts natural limitationsd.

Ec


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Brian Salter-Duke-2
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 01:58:32PM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote:

>
>
> On Jan 25, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
>
> >Phil Sandifer wrote:
> >>I'd be similarly shocked if one could write a good article on high
> >>temperature physics or group theory while being totally dependent on
> >>published reliable sources, because those sources were never written
> >>for the purpose of being used to explain the concept to novices.
> >>
> >The best sources for general topics are textbooks actually; reliable,
> >and written to explain concepts. I find the introductions to  
> >monographs
> >and papers as useful for WP as the bodies; at least the more  
> >articulate
> >writers manage to get in a few words intelligible to the  
> >nonspecialist. :-)
>
> I picked those examples precisely because there weren't good or  
> usable textbooks for them. (Or, at least, I asked a random chemistry  
> grad student I had nearby for two topics that would fit that bill and  
> that's what she gave me. Damned if I know what the hell group theory  
> is.)

[[Group theory]] is a branch of mathematics. That article has a rather
poor paragraph that points to how chemists us it. To a chemist, Group
Theory is a study of the symmetry of molecules or of crystals. The
latter is used in X-ray crystallography. The former is used in quantum
chemistry and molecular spectroscopy. We do not have an article on it
and we should. There are plenty of fairly simple (2nd year chemistry
undergrad level) books. The most famous is probably "Chemical
applications of Group Theory" by F. Albert Cotton (1963) which lead to
it being taught to undergrads. Plenty of people have tried to improve on
it since but most failed. I may have a go at an article.

Brian.

> -Phil
>
> ------------------------------

--
          Brian Salter-Duke            [hidden email]  
               [[User:Bduke]]  mainly on en:Wikipedia.
           Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
> I think the term for what you say is "double standard".  Are Wikipedia
> editors really that much more prone to Alzheimer's?

It doesn't take Alzheimer's for someone to make a mistake...
Britannica is made by employees that went through an interview process
and had their CVs examined, etc. Wikipedia is made by anyone and
everyone. Britannica may not be any more accurate, but it is more
reliable.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
> We are a tertiary resource.  If two Wikipedians used different sources
> to arrive at the same place it makes no difference in the way that it
> would for a secondary source.  Your argument is just strange.  It seems
> to make the specific source more important than the information itself.

I'm not making my point very well, sorry. I'll try again:

*Citing* reliable sources isn't very important. What is important is
*using* reliable sources.  When someone writes something from memory
and doesn't cite a source, the problem isn't that they haven't cited a
source, the problem is that they didn't use one.

Citing sources is just the easiest way to confirm that reliable
sources were used, it's not the important factor, it's just the way we
confirm the important factor.

Someone writing an article and expecting someone else to find the
sources is wasting their time, as the person finding the sources will
be doing all the work. The actual writing of an article is generally
the easy part, it's finding the information with is difficult. The
wiki concept is great at copyediting and making things easier to read,
and that's the only bit a writer that doesn't cite sources does.

Perhaps we should encourage people to start articles with just bullet
point facts and let the people that don't like research take over from
there. (Obviously, if someone wants to write the whole thing, no-one
will stop them, but we should make it clear that just doing the
research is useful work that can be done independently of the
writing.)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

George William Herbert
On 1/27/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > We are a tertiary resource.  If two Wikipedians used different sources
> > to arrive at the same place it makes no difference in the way that it
> > would for a secondary source.  Your argument is just strange.  It seems
> > to make the specific source more important than the information itself.
>
> I'm not making my point very well, sorry. I'll try again:
>
> *Citing* reliable sources isn't very important. What is important is
> *using* reliable sources.  When someone writes something from memory
> and doesn't cite a source, the problem isn't that they haven't cited a
> source, the problem is that they didn't use one.
>
> Citing sources is just the easiest way to confirm that reliable
> sources were used, it's not the important factor, it's just the way we
> confirm the important factor.
>
> Someone writing an article and expecting someone else to find the
> sources is wasting their time, as the person finding the sources will
> be doing all the work. The actual writing of an article is generally
> the easy part, it's finding the information with is difficult. The
> wiki concept is great at copyediting and making things easier to read,
> and that's the only bit a writer that doesn't cite sources does.
>
> Perhaps we should encourage people to start articles with just bullet
> point facts and let the people that don't like research take over from
> there. (Obviously, if someone wants to write the whole thing, no-one
> will stop them, but we should make it clear that just doing the
> research is useful work that can be done independently of the
> writing.)

I've talked before, about the possibility of an alternate free
encyclopedia, starting with the facts (a database, of fact + reference
+ context / connections), with full tracability of all data in the
encyclopedia.

Would be very useful to AI researchers, some of whom have done similar
things in training AI programs and the like, in addition to a useful
public project.

As I keep saying: Wikipedia is not, has not been, and should not
become that project.  If you want to fork off and do it, I'd
contribute, but I will fight / argue to the last breath to keep you
from turning Wikipedia into that project.  Even if it's a good idea to
do it, it's not the same as WP, and it's necessary to have a WP type
project in the world.


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>I think the term for what you say is "double standard".  Are Wikipedia
>>editors really that much more prone to Alzheimer's?
>>    
>>
>It doesn't take Alzheimer's for someone to make a mistake...
>Britannica is made by employees that went through an interview process
>and had their CVs examined, etc. Wikipedia is made by anyone and
>everyone. Britannica may not be any more accurate, but it is more
>reliable.
>
IOW Britannica is more professional at making mistakes. :-)

Ec


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

SPUI
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Someone writing an article and expecting someone else to find the
> sources is wasting their time, as the person finding the sources will
> be doing all the work. The actual writing of an article is generally
> the easy part, it's finding the information with is difficult. The
> wiki concept is great at copyediting and making things easier to read,
> and that's the only bit a writer that doesn't cite sources does.

Not true at all. If I write "Route 24 opened in January 1963", but don't
have a source, someone else with newspaper archive access has a much
easier time finding a source knowing what month to look in.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1 ... 5678