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

Sun Dec 4 01:22:39 UTC 2005

Sabine Cretella wrote:

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

The individual in question was not particularly notable.  It's not 
surprising that no-one noticed the problems with the article.  The story 
is plausible, but who are the people who would read about this guy?

>> Like it or not we are being used as a major reference source. Readers 
>> rely on us to be accurate.
>> Adding references helps us do that.  
>
> Well I like it being used, but it is not used enough - people don't 
> know Wikipedia. Readers who rely on only one source are not good 
> readers ... they are blind readers. And what if the references already 
> contain that error? The reference of the reference?

To some extent readers have to take responsibility for what they read.  
They are not responsible for what is wrong in an article, but they are 
responsible for how it affects what they do in their own lives.  
Critical thinking is more important now than ever.  When the people who 
fail to read critically are in positions of power they can end up 
starting wars in distant places.

Ec