On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Kim Bruning <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can edit, > eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for an > encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc). > > Right now, en.wikipedia rules are more complex and potentially more > strict than nupedia ever was, and we're running on inertia. > Rules may be strict, but in the things that matter they are ineffective. For the past few days, the media have reported on the Bicholim Conflict hoax – a "Good Article" on a war that never happened, and could never have happened (one of the parties to it, the Maratha Empire, did not even exist at the time).* That hoax remained listed as a Good Article for more than five years. The Good Article reviewing guideline says, *Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained.* * * In the wake of the Bicholim conflict story, another contributor was blocked the other day by George William Herbert, "upon review of outstanding claims of fabrication of sources and quotes. Damaging the integrity of Wikipedia is not acceptable behavior." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive780#False_references_and_BLP_misquotes:_block_user_as_hoaxer.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legolas2186&diff=531375810&oldid=531295145 That editor has written or co-written 95 Good Articles, and 7 Featured Articles, mostly on entertainers like Madonna and Lady Gaga. That included a Featured Article on Madonna, which was then demoted, with lots of material removed, after sourcing concerns were raised about the editor's work. Editors who looked into the concerns say the chap made up sources and put words into Madonna's mouth, making her say things in Wikipedia which she had never said, and still getting his articles approved for GA and FA. The English Wikipedia needs a wake-up call. It offers a playground to vandals and petty officials, has people arguing interminably about civility and waffling about the need to assume good faith, while encyclopedic core skills are lacking, even in what is supposed to be Wikipedia's best work. Andreas *For a write-up and links, see http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/01/09/wikipedias-new-year-begins-with-a-hoax/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
