On Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 13:16 Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>


No, I'm saying that it's ridiculous to judge wikipedia on its policy that
citing itself is disallowed.

You keep rephrasing what I say in order to disagree with something I dont
say. Stop doing that.




> 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>
_______________________________________________
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