[WikiEN-l] Re: Packed with clickable citations

Sat Jan 24 15:31:53 UTC 2004

> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 03:16:31 -0600
> From: "Ira Stoll" <irastoll at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy Suggestions
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <Law12-F47IGOHE44UQu0001b8be at hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> That's exactly what I'm getting at. The wikipedia should be packed with
> clickable citations.The reason why I've always loved encyclopedias so 
> much
> is the quality of the information, and the impartial manner in which 
> it was
> presented. Citations (particularly linkable) bring with them evidence 
> for
> belief, and an option for the reader to learn further, investigate for
> themselves (by clicking on it). A basic of polite discourse (and a 
> policy in
> my debate club) was to accept another's argument so long as it is 
> logical,
> and to accept their premise so long as you could not disprove it (like 
> thru
> a citation). What I Don't like about the wikipedia is when the truth 
> (or a
> way of interpreting it) is removed from an article, regardless of the
> quality of citation, due to overriding majority POV. My suggestions are
> meant to address that. JackLynch

I agree completely. Lack of citation and traceability is IMHO a big 
glaring
deficiency in traditional encyclopedias, and it's one that should be 
remediable
in a hypertext encyclopedia. (However, like so much about Wikipedia,
there's no big barrier to "just doing it" and hoping that others will
follow suit. Much as I'd like better Wiki-apparatus for the purpose).

As for "Wikipedia is not a list of citations"&mdash;fine; neither is
Lauren Hillenbrand's "Seabiscuit: An American Legend," but every
darn statement she make in that readable, popular bestseller is
documented and attributed.

The omniscient viewpoint adopted by textbooks below the college
level and encyclopedias is intellectually dishonest. When an educated
person reads any factual matter, the question "Why should I believe 
this?"
is (or should always be) in the back of their mind. "Because it's in a 
book
and 'they' wouldn't print it if it weren't true?" "Because the style of 
writing
gives me the impression the author knows what he's talking about?"

Verifiability is important. (And it's just as important for 
noncontroversial
facts as for controversial facts).

One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that it gives us an
opportunity to think about the nature of knowledge
and authority.

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at world.std.com alternate: 
dpbsmith at alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/