[Foundation-l] Re: Sources and sourceability

Sat Dec 3 17:59:25 UTC 2005

Michael Snow wrote:

> SJ wrote:
>
>>> When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into connection 
>>> to people editing and adding contents - it must be seen as something 
>>> separate - many people are not able to "separate" things themselves 
>>> they will combine and make something different out of all this.
>>
>>
>> What does this mean?  How can citations be separate from adding content?
>> Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from; 
>> other people can do nothing but guess.
>
>
> Why does it matter where it came from? Except in cases where you're 
> dealing with a primary source and it's essential to check the 
> original, the choice of sources is just as subject to editing as the 
> content. If I add content and cite a pathetically bad source, the 
> source does not need to stay in the article even if it happens to be 
> right (if it happens to be wrong and represents a significant point of 
> view might be another matter). Other people can find other and often 
> better sources even if they're unable to determine what the initial 
> source was, and if the case involves a primary source then the 
> information inherently points to where you need to look.
>
> Many people don't seem to understand this and think there's some kind 
> of rule that once a source has been used in the writing of an article, 
> it must be cited or preserved in a References section for all time. 
> Even normal scholarly practice doesn't require this (else probably 
> most Wikipedia articles would need to cite other Wikipedia articles as 
> references), and we in particular should be able to get past such 
> limited ways of thinking. One of the virtues of our collaborative 
> system is that there is very little need to try and divine the intent 
> of an original author, and we needn't be beholden to that person in 
> terms of choosing sources either.

On the contrary, any published books, such as.... Encyclopaedia 
Britannica, has every single one of the its facts checked against each 
individual source. This is a requirement of the publisher, and of the 
company. They don't make their sources public, so we have to trust them, 
but because they have checked each fact, it is usually alright to trust 
them. We, on the other hand, by default are accepting new information 
without any sources.

By listing our sources, we will become more trusted than even 
Encyclopaedia Britannica, who, though sourcing all their facts, doesn't 
make their sources public.

As for the often-repeated "anyone can fake a source" or "this will put a 
false trust in sources".... Please stop and think about how ridiculous 
this statement is, for the simple reason that: before you can even check 
the validity of a source, you need that source to be listed. You can't 
check the validity of unsourced information unless you go out and find 
sources for it. Listing sources does that job for you, but the sources 
still need to be checked for validity. That is the job of the reader who 
wants to know if he can trust our information.

Please, everyone, stop this paranoia. Any scheme that would involve 
_visually_ identifying unsourced information would be a SETTING that 
users can turn on or off.