Martin

You really think that it is ridiculous that encyclopaedias in general and
Wikipedia in particular should be judged, among other criteria, on their
reliability?  If so, I disagree.

However, if you really believe that an encyclopadia does not ned to be
reliable, then it seems that on this specific point we may need to agree to
disagree.  How about the other points I adduce, such as the millions of
unreferenced or inadeqautely referenced articles discovered at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wikipedias-missing-citation-needed-tags/
--
is that evidence of success?  The thousands of articles in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unreferenced_BLPs -- is that
evidence of success?

Thrapostibongles

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 1:44 PM Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoeks...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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>
_______________________________________________
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