[Foundation-l] Wikiquote: to be, or not to be

Thu Sep 11 15:27:59 UTC 2008

2008/9/11 Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net>:
> mboverload wrote:

>> I messed the last section up:  A lazy reporter cites something from
>> Wikipedia that is not cited (and maybe not true).  The lazy reporter
>> then reports on it in a reliable source.  Then that reliable source
>> gets cited in the article to back up that "fact".

> A reliable source doing that is not reliable anymore, i.e. this source
> is not suitable as a reference for Wikipedia.

There are no reliable sources in that sense. All sources have less
than 100% reliability because they're written by fallible humans.

Reference loops happen every now and then on en:wp. It's usually
faintly embarrassing to all involved and a note goes on the talk page.
It's not that big a deal in the wider scheme of things as long as
someone catches it. As lazy journalists who quote Wikipedia without
naming it get caught out, less lazy journalists learn to name it and
keep it to casual stuff, so the problem should stay generally
manageable.

- d.