[Foundation-l] Enforcing WP:CITE the Soi case

Sat Dec 3 08:13:15 UTC 2005

Brian wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Walter van Kalken wrote:
>>
>>> Brian wrote:
>>>
>>>> As Danny has repeatedly mentioned, normal published textbooks, 
>>>> including encyclopedias, have every single fact cited and checked 
>>>> before the publisher will go on with printing the book. These 
>>>> citations aren't made public, but they are done, nonetheless. Why 
>>>> should we be any different? This doesn't necessarily mean putting 
>>>> 1000 sources in the reference section. There are other options we 
>>>> can consider, or new ways of citing content online, that are 
>>>> different from the methods used in printed books.
>>>
>>>
>>> Like instead of having the references in and under the article have 
>>> a seperate page like a talk page? And we just make "notes" which 
>>> link to the references on that "references"page?
>>
> Well, I think there are better options to consider. One post that was 
> made here that has been pretty much ignored is linked below. I talked 
> with brion about this, and he said that he thought it would be a big 
> step in the right direction, although we should consider this option 
> as more of a starting point for branching off ideas, rather than the 
> final way it should be:
>
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-December/005312.html 
>
>
> I especially like the option to include "cited text" and "paraphrase". 
> So, as his sample image shows, we can essentially cite every bit of an 
> article, thus becoming as sourced as any published book or 
> encyclopedia, but better!.. because our sources are public, whereas 
> with Britannica, you have to trust the word of the contributers (and 
> the typing/proofreading abilities of their staff). I'm not sure if I 
> like his "red box enclosing uncited text" scheme. Another possibility 
> using this method would be to lightly highlight text that is not 
> sourced in this way.
>
>> The page on which one chooses to put the quotes is only an aesthetic 
>> function.  The important thing is that they are findable and public.  
>> The purpose of citations is to give the reader the opportunity to 
>> verify the data for himself.  He can't do that if the citations are 
>> not public.
>>
>> Ec
>
> Agreed completely. By working to have every bit of our text not only 
> cited, but to have their sources public, we would be moving beyond the 
> verifiability of other encyclopedias.
>
> brian0918
>
Hoi,
And indeed, we would drive many people . I understand a wish for sources 
but by putting red boxes and what have you around  what has not been 
sourced  you make us into something what we are not. We would  be as 
expert as what Larry Sanger wants in his new project. Where is the 
difference  between Nupedia and Wikipedia ?

Have a separate page for your sources, have a talk page for discussion 
but leave the text proper alone. If you want to keep Wikipedia 
accessible this is the entry level where people are to be welcome. When 
something is not sourced, it does not give you the right to delete 
without prior verification. That is; you have to prove what is wrong as 
in you have to assume the good faith of the contributor. When you do you 
have the sources to prove your point you can change it like you always 
could but you now do it with the conviction of having sources to back it 
up.

At some stage there was a BIG row in the Dutch wikipedia; there was a 
guy, who got banned and everything, who pushed a particular point of 
view. He quoted sources. His sources were in a language where he was the 
only one who could read it, it was in Tamazingh. His sources were 
refused because of it and because of being extremely different from 
accepted knowledge. Now given that history is written by the victor, and 
given that this is particularly POV, having sources written by the 
victor make many historical sources suspect. So how are you going to 
square what you think you know about history an what can be "proven" by 
English language sources and what can be "proven" by sources of a 
different origin? By the way the Tamazingh POV was certainly not a 
victors POV.

This blind rush into trusting sources.. Please think what you try to do 
and be aware of the fall out. The attitude that only sourced information 
is good
and reliable assumes no good faith. It assumes that a professional 
approach is best. It makes us into a Nupedia where we were once open and 
free.

Thanks,
   GerardM