An element of our community which gives me hope, is that we are ready to
earnestly engage with any input, even the tendentious. This is getting a
bit repetitive, however, and as Martijn notes is not the best use of this
list.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:06 PM Martijn Hoekstra
wrote:
>
Martijn
>
> I'm under no such obligation,
Indeed, none of us is under any such obligation, which is why it is
somewhat pointless for one list member to issue orders to another, such as
"Don't do that."
> I do want to call out when something so egregiously
> off base is put forward as the
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 07:43 Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Martin
>
>
> > No, I'm saying that it's ridiculous to judge wikipedia on its policy that
> > citing itself is disallowed.
> >
>
> Perhaps, then, rather than telling us what it is that you don't agree with,
Martin
> No, I'm saying that it's ridiculous to judge wikipedia on its policy that
> citing itself is disallowed.
>
Perhaps, then, rather than telling us what it is that you don't agree with,
you would like to propound your own position, and in your own words. Do
you believe that Wikipedia is
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 13:16 Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Martin
>
> You really think that it is ridiculous that encyclopaedias in general and
> Wikipedia in particular should be judged, among other criteria, on their
> reliability? If so, I disagree.
>
No, I'm
Martin
You really think that it is ridiculous that encyclopaedias in general and
Wikipedia in particular should be judged, among other criteria, on their
reliability? If so, I disagree.
However, if you really believe that an encyclopadia does not ned to be
reliable, then it seems that on this
No.
What I'm saying is this: setting meeting the reliable sources policy of
wikipedia as a condition for success, or not meeting that policy as
evidence of failure is ridiculous.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 14:29 Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Martin, Dennis
>
> The
I've never seen a self-citing encyclopedia.
Given its open editing structure it would be so easy to game the system by
creating a series of cross-references. In short forbidding citing Wikipedia
on Wikipedia avoids such short-circuits.
No text is 100% accurate, Wikipedia relies upon the bet that
Martin, Dennis
The tenor of your arguments appears to be that Wikipedia is in fact
reliable, because it uses reliable sources, but that it pretends not to be
because it's too hard to prevent people writing article based on other
articles. This is not in accord with the facts. As I pointed out,
Wikipedia itself can never be more reliable than the sources it cites. If
it's allowed to cite itself, then there is no "bottom" to lean on, and its
quality would quickly drop.
That you conclude from that that wikipedia is unreliable and therefore
failed is IMO such a silly proposition, that I
It might be a good thread were it based on a better line of argument.
You are making too much of an artifact of the drafting of a Wikipedia
policy. The intent was clearly to prevent 1., bootstrapping, ie, writing
an article and using it as a 'reliable source' for another article, and 2.,
Dennis,
I started this thread to discuss both conduct and content policies on
Wikipedia, and indeed how the two interact. Wikipedia is a project to
build an encyclopaedia. By its own criteria, encyclopaedias are reliable
sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source; hence by its own criteria,
"One (and not the most important) pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in
a failed state is precisely that
it does not, by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable source
"
You have made this argument more than once. That might be a piece of
evidence seems both wrong and not
Vito
This rather tends to support my point. One (and not the most important)
pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in a failed state is precisely that
it does not , by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
source:whereas "Reputable tertiary sources
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 8:18 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's look at the content first. Even on Wikipedia's own terms, it has
> failed. It is a principle that Wikipedia is founded on reliable sources,
> and by its own admission, Wikipedia itself is not
Honestly I cannot imagine a functional Wikipedia citing itself.
Such Wikipedia would be so easy to trick.
Vito
Il giorno dom 16 giu 2019 alle ore 16:54 Martijn Hoekstra <
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> I disagree that Wikipedia not considering Wikipedia as an admissible source
> is
Hoi,
There is a picture of Jimmy Wales giving a talk at a Wikimania explicitly
talking about the situation that is here being considered. A person can be
a wonderful editor and a toxic personality. What is happening is not new,
it is coming to a head. When you, the English Wikipedia "community"
I think it's a good question.
The first thing, I think, is to regain the community's trust, which has
been very badly damaged at this point. I only see one way for them to do
that, and that is to back off, sooner rather than later. Ensure the
community that this will not happen again, at least
I disagree that Wikipedia not considering Wikipedia as an admissible source
is indicative of Wikipedia being a failure.
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 14:18 Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
> The discussion triggered by recent WMF T actions has tended to focus on
Hoi,
It is not so much Wikipedia that is failing, it is the Wikipedia "business
as usual" attitude that is failing. The challenge we face is now that we
know and expect that things are to change, how do we introduce change and
steer it in a way where people feel less threatened by the usual
20 matches
Mail list logo
