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>

Reply via email to