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, Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia. That is, it is currently in a state of failure with respect to its own mission.
One of the reasons for that state of failure is indeed the failure to provide a collegial working atmosphere. Thrapostibongles On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:19 PM Dennis During <dcdur...@gmail.com> wrote: > "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 relevant to the sense in which people > here as saying WP has failed, which is as a welcoming, "safe" environment > for contributors and would-be contributors. > > It is good policy to make sure that contributors reach out to other > sources, even when one believes that Wikipedia is as reliable as the > average tertiary source we allow as a reference. It prevents us from > relying exclusively on what can easily turn out to be a very narrow set of > points of view. Does/did the Encyclopedia Britanica cite other EB articles > as references rather than include them as "see alsos"? > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TERTIARY>, such as > > introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may > > be cited". So Wikipedia fails in its aim of being an encyclopaedia on > one > > of the most important tests one could imagine, namely reliability. And a > > reason for that is its lack of effective content management policies and > > mechanisms to put them into effect (in the old days we called that being > an > > editor, but that word on Wikipedia now is more or less a redundant > synonym > > for contributor). > > > > Now suppose that Wikipedia had effective editorial policies and processes > > that allowed it to assume the status of a reliable source, just like the > > encyclopaedia it aims to be. You say that even in that situation, it > would > > be easy to manipulate. On that assumption, how much easier it must be to > > "trick" it today when it has no such effective policies and processes in > > place! > > > > Thrapostibongles > > > > > > > > -- > Dennis C. During > _______________________________________________ > 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>