On 03/07/12 17:09, Delirium wrote:
The biggest angst producer in my view is actually the opposite case: something that seems like it "should" be covered, since it's notable, but for which the extant sources are really lacking, making it hard/impossible to write a well-sourced article. People get very angry when something they view as clearly notable (a programming language, say) is deleted due to lack of 3rd-party sources. I think the root problem here is a feeling that sources "should" or even "must" track notability, so given that something is clearly important (at least in a community), the lack of sources we consider acceptable is unexpected. Imo the problem is just that the literature sometimes lags and sometimes has blind spots; journalists, sociologists, historians, etc. don't cover everything important in full detail, instantly. I wrote a bit about that last year: http://www.kmjn.org/notes/wikipedia_notability_verifiability.html
I always imagined that Wikiversity would be the place where this could be done. If you can't find a source on something, write it yourself, then it could be peer-reviewed, by professional scientists and university professors if possible, formally published and used in Wikipedia.
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
