I've never seen a self-citing encyclopedia.

Given its open editing structure it would be so easy to game the system by
creating a series of cross-references. In short forbidding citing Wikipedia
on Wikipedia avoids such short-circuits.

No text is 100% accurate, Wikipedia relies upon the bet that by widening
the editorial community accuracy will asymptotically converge. Traditional
textbooks, scholarly articles, any different knowledge aggregation system
is characterized by a different funding premise.

In my opinion the "no autocitation" principle is a direct consequence of
our fundamental principles, therefore a self-citing Wikipedia is possible,
but it wouldn't longer be Wikipedia.

Vito

Il giorno lun 17 giu 2019 alle ore 19:55 Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> 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>

Reply via email to