[Foundation-l] Wikipedia ... but where are you going ... (was:Enforcing WP:CITE ...)

Sat Dec 3 16:13:33 UTC 2005

--- Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> not here ... up to now in a place with 6000 people not one knew 
> Wikipedia - I am NOT kidding.

Wikipedia is a top 40 website and the number 1 reference website on the Internet. 13 million
unique visitors used Wikipedia in September of this year. That does not at all include the many
millions more people who use Wikipedia content from hundreds of mirrors. By any measure that makes
Wikipedia famous. 

> It is one case ... things have been corrected as soon as the error was 
> seen ... well, where's the problem? 

The libelous statements remained uncorrected for 4 months and were spread to hundreds of Wikipedia
mirrors. We not only failed to correct the error, but our license allowed it to be spread all over
the Internet. 

> The best answer to such an article 
> would have been: well if you knew that it was wrong, and you know what 
> Wikipedia is, why do you make such a huge problem out of this: simply 
> correct things - you could have done this - so it is not us who are 
> wrong, but the person who "did not correct" knowing how Wikipedia works 
> and "officially" believes in equal chances and whatever ... use these 
> critics in the right way - that's all.

SoFixIt is no longer a valid retort for the larger language versions where readers outnumber
editors by over 200 to 1 and the vast, vast, majority of people who use those Wikipedias will
never edit. Again, a sourcing requirement would only be enacted by each wiki community when it
thinks that it is needed. I think it is needed for at least the English Wikipedia. 

> So now I write about the "Chiesa del Carmine" (Church of the Carmine) 
> here in Maiori - where there is no official documentation - all I know 
> is from what people of Maiori told me. 

That may or may not be original research. If it is, then it already is not allowed, if it is just
observation or common knowledge in that village, then citing personal correspondence and
unpublished records is perfectly valid when there are no other alternatives. In other words, if a
phone call or visit could confirm the information, then that may in fact be a valid reference.

> Readers who rely on only one source are not good readers ... 
> they are blind readers. 

I agree and find it odd at how indigent some people get when they find out that any source they
use is wrong. But at the same time we do have a responsibility to make sure we try our best. Good
referencing is a part of that. We also have to take the world as it is, not as we think it should
be. The world is filled with lots of blind readers. 

> And what if the references already contain that 
> error? The reference of the reference?

Each reference is going to have its own errors. That is why any article written should ideally
have multiple references; common facts between them can be more trusted than facts that disagree.
A good researcher needs to use good references, compare their facts, and find out the truth when
the references disagree. 

But none of that work can be done if there are no references to check.

-- mav

__________________________________________ 
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. 
Just $16.99/mo. or less. 
dsl.yahoo.com 