No. What I'm saying is this: setting meeting the reliable sources policy of wikipedia as a condition for success, or not meeting that policy as evidence of failure is ridiculous.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 14:29 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
