That is not correct. Nothing is written in stone, but must be reached via a
consensus.
Truth can be relative, but verifiability must be absolute. This is somewhat
tempered by the BLP (bios of living people) rules, there is a modicum of
protection against slander in those.
there are also strict rules agaist censorship, so anything reliably
documented will be kept, even if there were someone who didn't like what he
saw.
RT
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Brohinsky" <[email protected]>
To: "lutenet" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:53 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Wikipedia
Yet another good reason why conscientious teachers forbid their
students from using Wikipedia as a source. There is more, of course:
if your subject becomes 'sensitive' to the PC feelings of the
administrators or some nebulous and unidentified/unidentifiable
portion of the 'community', it is locked so it cannot be changed.
Then, regardless of how wrong the article is, it cannot be updated,
corrected or even discussed. Most interesting is that many of the
articles preserved, as it were, in bronze, are defamatory, like "Tea
Party", "Birthers", "Deniers"etc. It makes no difference that the
persons supposedly named by the article are incorrectly described: the
articles are protected by god-like powers to ensure that those people
never have a chance to present an opposing view.
Couple that with the poor excuse for scholarship that goes into the
articles and the hurdles present to prevent any real scholarship from
showing up (even provisionally) and you have a recipe for a useless
media.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Roman Turovsky <[email protected]>
wrote:
Wikipedia has strict rules against Original Research,
all information must be reliably sourced to scholarly 3rd parties.
So in the contest beteen Grove and Monica the former would still trump
the latter.
RT
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
