Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 22:54:31 +0100 From: Guy Chapman aka JzG Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Who wins Message-ID: <2f0g4297pqislk26ve83lh5sgbtvaf9m8s(a)4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:09:58 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: This has been suggested at WP:V but was soundly rejected as being functionally equivalent to "articles must cite sources unless you can't find any". There is a good reason that encyclopaedias typically do not document facts which cannot be verified from reliable sources: a significant proportion of them turn out to be false. Consider: you wish to promulgate a "Fred is Gay" meme (you are a not a friend of his, as we know friends of gays should not be allowed to edit Wikimedia projects). So, you set up your blogs on LiveJournal and Blogger, publish it, and then toddle off to Wikipedia to complete the writing into canon of your new shiny meme. Job done. Can you see how that might be bad? Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG Umm... No? What's so bad about it? Wikipedia has an article saying two blogs contain a sentence "Fred is Gay" and the reader draws the inference that the owner of those blogs is seriously retarded. Big deal. If it so happens that after a year T-shirts are selling reading Fred is Gay, Wikipedia was the first to document this rising star, good for Wikipedia. If it dies a quite death like so many others, Wikipedia has spent a few KBs writing an article few are interested in reading. So what? IMHO an extended interpretation of NPOV should not allow WP to judge particular sources as relaible and others as unreliable. Leave that to the reader. --------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.