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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
160 messages Options
12345678
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

George William Herbert
On 1/25/07, Bogdan Giusca <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thursday, January 25, 2007, 9:38:50 PM, George wrote:
>
> > Here's the problem.  Academic rigor - which I understand, having done
> > refereed papers for conferences and such - is all fine and good for
> > scholarly original research papers.
>
> > For an encyclopedia, the vast bulk of what we're trying to do is to
> > simply convey the top level survey of a field to the general public.
>
> You are arguing that for an encyclopedia, unlike for the academia,
> reliability and fact-checking are not important.

No, please.  That's not what I said at all.

> The academic rigor exists not just due to their elitism: that's how
> the Academia mentains their high standards of its publications.
>
> 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.

The current thread is grossly insulting to the accuracy of the average
Wikipedia article and contributor.


--
-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]]

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
> 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).

_______________________________________________
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]]

Michael Hopcroft
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
Phil Sandifer wrote:

> On Jan 25, 2007, at 2:51 PM, 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.
>>    
>
> Simple. You're a different kind of editor than Susan. You're willing  
> to put long hours into Wikipedia. You care enough to join a mailing  
> list about Wikipedia. Accordingly, it's not the end of the world for  
> you to spend half an hour on a task like this. Because (and this is  
> important) most of the time it won't be wrong. Susan may not be 100%  
> reliable, but she's pretty good. How do we know this? Because she  
> wrote most of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is pretty good.
>
> The model is this: we have thousands of Susans. They do a lot of the  
> heavy lifting on Wikipedia. Then we have a few hundred hardcore users  
> who fix the problems left by the thousands of Susans - they check odd  
> facts that don't seem to jibe, they deal with malicious users, they  
> get involved with edit wars, they delete, they debate policy.
>
> 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.


_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On 1/25/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> 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.

Not having any articles on subjects is not doing the readers any good
service at all.

Having unsourced but generally accurate articles is better.

Having sourced articles is better.  Having sourced articles which have
been fact checked is still better.

Having sourced articles which have been fact checked and written by
good writers with a feel for the field is best.

Wikipedia is an evolution along that series of steps.

Nupedia is an attempt to go straight to the last one, and has 20-ish
articles last I heard (not that recently).


--
-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]]

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
> > 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.

"Accurate" and "reliable" are not synonymous. Just because the article
happens to have everything right does not make it reliable, because
there is no way for you to know that it has everything right.

_______________________________________________
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]]

Bogdan Giusca
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
Thursday, January 25, 2007, 10:00:34 PM, George wrote:

> Wikipedia is not the fact-based encyclopedia project you're demanding.
>  It can never be, because it's not structured that way in a semantic
> or knowledge flow manner.  Attempting to force Wikipedia into that
> model will blow up your mind and our project.  Please stop.

What's wrong with adding a reference after each sentence?

Hoping that your mind won't blow, here's a very well-sourced example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_general_election%2C_1946

Wikipedia's purpose, as said by Jimbo, is not to be a wiki, not to be
a community, but to simply create an encyclopedia. The rest are simply
means towards a goal.

> Killing our project here and now by turning it into Nupedia makes no
> sense.  If their model works, then perhaps we should all go work over
> there.  If it doesn't then leave the WP model alone...

Maybe you are the one on the wrong encyclopedia: Wikipedia requires
verifiability as an official policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

And it's not Nupedia, everyone still can edit it, but one should add
the *source* of the addition.


_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Michael Hopcroft
On 1/25/07, Michael Hopcroft <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Phil Sandifer wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 2007, at 2:51 PM, 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.
> >>
> >
> > Simple. You're a different kind of editor than Susan. You're willing
> > to put long hours into Wikipedia. You care enough to join a mailing
> > list about Wikipedia. Accordingly, it's not the end of the world for
> > you to spend half an hour on a task like this. Because (and this is
> > important) most of the time it won't be wrong. Susan may not be 100%
> > reliable, but she's pretty good. How do we know this? Because she
> > wrote most of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is pretty good.
> >
> > The model is this: we have thousands of Susans. They do a lot of the
> > heavy lifting on Wikipedia. Then we have a few hundred hardcore users
> > who fix the problems left by the thousands of Susans - they check odd
> > facts that don't seem to jibe, they deal with malicious users, they
> > get involved with edit wars, they delete, they debate policy.
> >
> > 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.

It's not an irrational goal; we have goals that, under some
circumstances, conflict.

Adding things like stable article versions and the like will help
de-conflict those goals.  I don't recall any serious objections to
doing them, just objections that Mediawiki is far from being able to
support them.

At some point, an encyclopedia project might fork off Wikipedia,
enforcing some stricter editing and editor standards, and move more
efficiently towards the ultimate goal.  But so far, nobody seems
interested in doing that, without going as far as Nupedia, who I
believe are too far out in that direction.


--
-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]]

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

> On Jan 25, 2007, at 2:51 PM, 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.
>>    
>
> Simple. You're a different kind of editor than Susan. You're willing  
> to put long hours into Wikipedia. You care enough to join a mailing  
> list about Wikipedia. Accordingly, it's not the end of the world for  
> you to spend half an hour on a task like this. Because (and this is  
> important) most of the time it won't be wrong. Susan may not be 100%  
> reliable, but she's pretty good. How do we know this? Because she  
> wrote most of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is pretty good.
>  
In the areas I'm familiar with, that's not really how the numbers work.
There are lots of articles that I pass across, say "hmm, whole section
is probably bogus", but I don't have the time or energy to do anything
about it. In fact, it gets so tiresome I rarely even bother to note down
the need for factchecking anymore. My time isn't so worthless that I'm
willing to spend all of it perpetually cleaning up after the drivebys.

Stan


_______________________________________________
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]]

dmehkeri
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
> 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.
>

This may be true. But my sense is that most of the right facts were also added
the same way.

Similarly, most vandalism is done anonymously, but most anonymous edits are not
vandalism.

Dan



_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Bogdan Giusca
On 1/25/07, Bogdan Giusca <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thursday, January 25, 2007, 10:00:34 PM, George wrote:
>
> > Wikipedia is not the fact-based encyclopedia project you're demanding.
> >  It can never be, because it's not structured that way in a semantic
> > or knowledge flow manner.  Attempting to force Wikipedia into that
> > model will blow up your mind and our project.  Please stop.
>
> What's wrong with adding a reference after each sentence?
>
> Hoping that your mind won't blow, here's a very well-sourced example:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_general_election%2C_1946
>
> Wikipedia's purpose, as said by Jimbo, is not to be a wiki, not to be
> a community, but to simply create an encyclopedia. The rest are simply
> means towards a goal.

That's a terrible article.  It's not an encyclopedia article, it's a
scholarly paper on the topic.

It's not a bad scholarly paper, on first look, but it's not a good
encyclopedia article.

> > Killing our project here and now by turning it into Nupedia makes no
> > sense.  If their model works, then perhaps we should all go work over
> > there.  If it doesn't then leave the WP model alone...
>
> Maybe you are the one on the wrong encyclopedia: Wikipedia requires
> verifiability as an official policy.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

The third sentence is:
"Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is
challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

That is not "cite every single fact", that is "provide a reliable
source for anything that people aren't likely to believe by
themselves".  Providing good references and citations for the rest of
it is covered elsewhere but less forcefully.


--
-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]]

dmehkeri
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
>
> Similarly, most vandalism is done anonymously, but most anonymous edits are
> not vandalism.

Ah bloody hell. That was supposed to be my oh-so-smooth transition to an
obligatory bitch about anonymous page creation. So much for timing.

Anyway. Anon page creation, Susan gets confused and winds up at AfC, poor Susan,
salt of the earth, etc etc.

Dan


_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On 1/25/07, Thomas Dalton <[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.
>
> "Accurate" and "reliable" are not synonymous. Just because the article
> happens to have everything right does not make it reliable, because
> there is no way for you to know that it has everything right.

There are more citations per article in Wikipedia than in Brittanica.
Is Brittanica an unreliable source?

I already know that Wikipedia is not completely reliable.  Insisting
on source citations isn't going to fix that - someone could put in a
citation that's bogus, or put one in that says something other than
what they say, or put one in that they misinterpret, because they
aren't an expert on the field.  All three of these things have
happened to articles I have edited at one time or another.  I can't
trust the citations, because I can't trust the identity and accuracy
of the contributors who added them.  I'd have to go fact-check every
source for an article to be really sure, and that scales pretty
horribly.


--
-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]]

Robth
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
On 1/25/07, Phil Sandifer <[hidden email]> 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.

Principles are different from methods, and this is a critical
distinction.  Accepting just about anything people are give us has
been a method of ours for a long time, and has worked its way deep
into our culture, but it isn't our principle--that's writing a great
free encyclopedia.  Today's tasks are different from the tasks of a
few years ago, and we shouldn't be afraid to reevaluate our methods if
necessary.

What we see here is a bit of a clash between two forms of quality; we
are proverbially good at one, and proverbially bad at the other.  The
first is size; we can tell you something about more topics than anyone
else.  We got here through the work of casual contributors (although
the five minute thing is nonsense--this model of articles improving in
tiny partial edits doesn't gibe with a reality in which, while the
bulk of our content is written by casual contributors, the casual
contributors in question are people who sit down and spend half an
hour or so adding a serious chunk of text).  The second form of
quality, the one we're proverbially bad at, is reliability.  When we
started out, we needed size, and our policies were designed
accordingly.  Now, we got size, but we still need reliability.  If we
can alter the system that's already made us big to focus on improving
the stuff we have, we should do it.

Nor do I think the change is that radical.  As I said above, I don't
put much stock by the five minute figure.  Articles don't grow in
smooth little increments; they balloon out of nowhere, then wait a
year, then expand rapidly again, as people come in, sit down, and
spend serious time writing something up; it's punctuated equilibrium,
not gradualism.  An encyclopedia is not written in five minute bursts,
no matter how many of them there are.  And for people who do sit down
to spend serious time on an article, grabbing a book, checking the
facts, and noting that they have done so isn't so great an additional
burden.

The image of "Susan" or someone like her has been a powerful one in
Wikipedia culture; there's this belief that we got to where we are
through countless tiny doses of effort and time, rather than a more
finite number of larger doses.  I have seen no evidence to support
this view, and plenty to suggest otherwise.  I think its time to
recognize this and do what we can to maximize the improvement that
occurs as a result of those larger doses.

--
Robth,
feeling somewhat like Comrade Gletkin

_______________________________________________
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]]

Omegatron-3
On 1/25/07, Bogdan Giusca <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Wikipedia's purpose is not to be a wiki

Ummm...

On 1/25/07, Robth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> When we
> started out, we needed size, and our policies were designed
> accordingly.  Now, we got size, but we still need reliability.  If we
> can alter the system that's already made us big to focus on improving
> the stuff we have, we should do it.

If you want to fundamentally change the whole concept and policies of
the project, why not just start a fork?  Isn't that what Citizendium,
Wikinfo, Digital Universe, and so on are trying to do?

_______________________________________________
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 George William Herbert
> 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.)

_______________________________________________
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 Omegatron-3
> If you want to fundamentally change the whole concept and policies of
> the project, why not just start a fork?  Isn't that what Citizendium,
> Wikinfo, Digital Universe, and so on are trying to do?

He isn't trying to change the policies. WP:CITE and WP:RS are current
policies - it's the people that want to relax those policies that are
trying the change policies. Perhaps they should fork?

_______________________________________________
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]]

Sage Ross
On 1/25/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> He isn't trying to change the policies. WP:CITE and WP:RS are current
> policies - it's the people that want to relax those policies that are
> trying the change policies. Perhaps they should fork?
>

Ahem... WP:CITE and WP:RS are guidelines.  But Robth puts it exactly
right.  There is pretty much a consensus that citations and the use of
reliable sources are good things that make Wikipedia better, ceteris
paribus.  It's an issue of emphasis.  No doubt CITE and RS, in some
cases, either turn potential contributors off of Wikipedia or inspire
the removal of valid information.  But they also inspire the addition
of sourcing (and perhaps the participation of editors who wouldn't
edit in project where sources carried less weight).  The goal in
writing or re-writing those guidelines should be to strike the optimal
balance between the positive effects and the negative effects.  But
both guidelines are central to the shift in Wikipedia culture over the
past year or so, in which we've seen drastic sourcing improvements to
the point where most editors realize that sources are expected, not
just encouraged.

-ragesoss

_______________________________________________
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]]

Sean Barrett-3
In reply to this post by Jeff Raymond
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jeff Raymond stated for the record:

> geni wrote:
>
>> False.
>>
>> It includes elements of law so beautifully complex in their
>> construction that a lifetime of study would hardly scratch the surface
>
> False.  Our fair use policy is rooted in copyright paranoia.
>
> -Jeff

False. It is rooted in free redistributability.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Modern art is what happens when painters stop
 [hidden email] | looking at girls and persuade themselves
                  | that they have a better idea. --John Ciardi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFuSHo/SVOiq2uhHMRAt2DAKCokPsnWfk+L8c2as0BYeqHUxInPACfRWHu
6G2uHOGrUGIZO3GsO8FGSnA=
=UNel
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
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]]

Bogdan Giusca
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
Thursday, January 25, 2007, 10:21:27 PM, George wrote:

>> Hoping that your mind won't blow, here's a very well-sourced example:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_general_election%2C_1946
>>
> That's a terrible article.  It's not an encyclopedia article, it's a
> scholarly paper on the topic.

> It's not a bad scholarly paper, on first look, but it's not a good
> encyclopedia article.

Do you have any reasons you think so? I don't think there's any policy
claiming that Wikipedia articles should be dumbed down. For that,
there's simple English Wikipedia. :-)




_______________________________________________
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 1/25/07, Bogdan Giusca <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thursday, January 25, 2007, 10:21:27 PM, George wrote:
>
> >> Hoping that your mind won't blow, here's a very well-sourced example:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_general_election%2C_1946
> >>
> > That's a terrible article.  It's not an encyclopedia article, it's a
> > scholarly paper on the topic.
>
> > It's not a bad scholarly paper, on first look, but it's not a good
> > encyclopedia article.
>
> Do you have any reasons you think so? I don't think there's any policy
> claiming that Wikipedia articles should be dumbed down. For that,
> there's simple English Wikipedia. :-)

The point of the encyclopedia is to make an overview available and
accessible to non-experts.

The intro is fine, but there's an excess of detail that follows, and
the citations are overwhelming for normal readers.

I don't say that because I object personally ... in terms of quality
level and citations and such, it is good, the sort of work I'd expect
from grad students or academics doing an overview, including what
looks like good citations... It's not my topic area of interest, but
it's a good article from that perspective.

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-)


--
-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
12345678