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

Sat Dec 3 22:22:46 UTC 2005

Delphine Ménard wrote:

>On 12/3/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>>Brian wrote:
>>>Britannica has to defend every letter of it before they can get
>>>published. The same is true for all other major encyclopedias. Why
>>>wouldn't it be true for us? Aren't we trying to make an encyclopedia
>>>here?
>>>      
>>>
>
>I'm jumping in the train. There is a limit to what can be sourced, and
>what cannot. Not *every* word can be. But every fact *should* be
>sourced, in an ideal world, yes. I agree.
>
>  
>
>>Wikipedia is based on mutual trust. I trust that you put valid info on
>>there. I ask you for the same trust. Now asking me to go and dig up were
>>the hell I learned some things in my 32 years on this planet is a bit to
>>much. If I actually research something especially for wikipedia I put
>>sources on there(which is most of my contributions) If I just happen to
>>know something I do not. You just have to trust my statement. Wikipedia
>>is based on trust! Now if you say you cannot trust me I have to put
>>about a 1000 articles on nl: and about 20 or so on en: on votes for
>>deletion.
>>    
>>
>
>Quoting you : "Wikipedia is based on trust"
>
>Yes, and no.
>Yes, there are certain editors I trust, as we do all, and others I
>distrust. I will trust you on the Soi article, because *I* know you
>live there. In that, in my eyes, *you* are a known source. But where I
>trust you, there could (and should) be 20 editors who distrust you.
>Not because of you, because in fact, they don't know you, but because
>then they would go and look for opposing sources, or verifying sources
>to support the facts you put in your articles. And I think that is
>good.
>
>No, Wikipedia *should* not be solely based on trust. I think we,
>editors, are too often forgetting that *we* know to trust some people,
>but that readers, who never ever get to hit the "history" button,
>should not take us for granted,a nd that we should give them every
>possible means to verify that what is stated in an article is indeed
>verifiable.
>
> I remember when I did my first presentation of Wikipedia. The same
>question that comes up all the time came up that time also. "If anyone
>can edit, how can you trust". I was new to the whole thing, so I gave
>what I thought was the best answer at the time "Well, if *you* find a
>mistake, correct it, and there are xxx contributors who look at
>articles and do rc patrolling, etc."
>
>At that point a woman in the assistance got up and said "Well, I have
>an answer to this. I believe that the fact that Wikipedia *can* be
>distrusted is a good thing. In this world where so much information is
>given to us with no background, no distanciation, the fact that
>Wikipedia keeps people wondering is good, because it obliges them to
>go and find other sources, to diversify their views on one subject".
>
>That opened a whole different view on the projects to me.
>
>Mind you, I am not saying that we *should* have mistakes in the
>articles, on the contrary. But sourcing, which in my view is crucial,
>as Danny,Sj and Michael pointed out, should not be seen as having for
>sole role that of making Wikipedia look "better", (ie. we are right,
>that guy said it) but as our due to the readers. See for yourself.
>
>We are striving to write an encyclopedia, but by definition, we don't
>have it all. You, reader,  can trust us, because we can direct you to
>other sources where we got our information, but at the same time, you
>should see for yourself, and here is how you can do it, follow the
>link. And also, please, if you disagree, if we've got something wrong,
>by all means, add your source, and their point of view.
>
>Without sources, we pretend *we* are the source, and I believe that is
>wrong. We should be *one source* not *the source*
>
>Best,
>
>Delphine
>
Thank you for your statements. I agree completely with your reasoning.