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: 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>