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, and as
Foundation research has shown, millions -- literally millions, and when I
say "literally" I literally mean "literally" -- of articles, about one in
five, are not founded on reliable sources, and some thousands of those,
being biographies of living people, should have been instantly deleted.  So
we cannot rely on any of those millions of articles, by your own
reasoning.  The reason why Wikipedia deems itself unreliable is that it is
an open wiki, and all such sources are forbidden, because anyone can write
anything on them: "Content from websites whose content is largely
user-generated
is also generally unacceptable."  Wikipedia is cited in the policy as
merely another example of such unreliable sources.

The way forward, however unpalatable this may be to people who would like
to believe that this is somehow silly or sophistry, is to look the facts in
the face and accept that some form of editorial policy, content workflow
management and supervision of the volunteer effort is necessary to make
Wikipedia what aspires to be, but is not currently, namely an encyclopaedia.

Thrapostibongles

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:06 PM Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoeks...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 dont know whether you
> seriously think this, in which case we should probably take this off list,
> or that you're engaging in sophistry and using arguments you don't think
> are reasonable in the first place.
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 19:56 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to