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 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&S actions has tended to focus on > > the merits or otherwise of that specific action (even though as I have > > pointed out elsewhere this is very much a case of those who know don;t > talk > > and those who talk don't know). So I though it might be helpful to try > and > > abstract some more general points for discussion. > > > > The long-term future of the Community, and the relationship between the > > Foundation and its volunteers is under discussion in an elaborately > > structured consultation announced already here in September 2017. It > would > > not be particularly helpful to try to run a parallel discussion here. > But > > in the short to medium term, it seems that it will be necessary for the > > Foundation to take a different stance with respect to the management of > the > > various projects, and the English Wikipedia in particular. > > > > It is often said that "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works > in > > practice. In theory, it can never work." Well, that's half true. What > the > > experiment has proved is that the theory was indeed correct -- Wikipedia, > > as currently constituted, does not work. There are two inter-related > > aspects to its failure: content and conduct, inextricably related in a > > project founded on crowd-sourcing. > > > > 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 such a source. That > > bears repetition -- a project aiming to be an encyclopaedia, that > compares > > itself with Britannica, explicitly is not reliable. Foundation research > > has shown that about one fifth of Wikipedia articles are supported by > > references that are inadequate to support the text or simply are not > > there. That's about a million articles each on of the larger Wikpedias. > > Some thousands of those are biographies of living people and in view of > the > > risk of defamation, no such articles should exist on Wikipedia at all. > > There are several thousand articles that are possible copyright > violations: > > again such articles should not be there. And when I say "should not", I > > mean according to the rules adopted by the Wikipedia volunteer community > > itself. > > > > This links to the conduct aspects. The self-organising policies of the > > "encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" have flattened out the formal > > hierarchy to the extent that it has been replaced, necessarily, by an > > informal but strong hierarchy based on a reputation econiomy. This > creates > > an unpleasant and hence ineffective working environment, and makes it all > > but impossible to organise a volunteer workforce into coping with the > major > > violations of content policy alreay mentioned. Indeed, the conduct > policy > > makes it all but impossible to effectively handle cases of major abuse, > > witting ot uwitting. For example, one reason for the failure to manage > > copyright violations is that some thousand of articles were written by a > > volunteer who was unable or unwilling to comply with the copyright > > requirements applicable to their contributions There is simply no > > mechanism that allows for contributions to be effectively checked either > > when contributed or subsequently, bcause there is no mechanism that makes > > it possible to manage or organise the work of the volunteers, and > existing > > community norms will not accept such a degree of organisation. > > > > These mutually reinforcing failures make to necessary for some degree of > > organisation and management of content and conduct to be imposed from > > outside the volunteer community. The Foundation has the resources and is > > the only entity that can acquire and deploy the expertise required to do > > so. No doubt this is unpalatable to some of the more vociferous members > of > > the community -- those who stand highest in the reputation economy and > have > > most to lose by it being replaced by an effective management policy. But > > the fact remains -- Wikipedia is failing, and in its present form will > > inevitably continue to do so. > > > > Foundation or failure -- which is it to be? > > > > Thrapostibongles > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>