[Wikipedia-l] NYT to forbid use of Wikipedia as a reference?

Thu Dec 8 15:55:51 UTC 2005

This is not a cut-and-dried issue, and we should treat it with respect.

Say you're tasked with quickly determining if a fact is true.  You
decide to find at least two reputable sources mentioning the fact --
and moreover, you look briefly at each of their references, if any. 
You're under deadline; so shaving 5 minutes off your search time a
dozen times a day is helpful.

Wikipedia offers a fast way to snag one of these sources.  But is it
reputable enough to count?  Or is it only useful as a portal to its
own references -- where you'll have to scour each one to see if it
contains the specific morsel of data you were searching for[1]?

In theory, for some highly-edited articles, it /is/ reputable enough
to count, as are other encyclopedias or reporters -- that is, it
serves as confirmation that one or two reasonably-informed people did
basic background/literature checks and found something to be true.  Of
course primary/secondary sources are far better still than these two
classes of information.

In practice, WP *gives the visual impression* that all articles are
comparably reputable.  As such, it is problematic to include it
alongside the World Book as a tertiary source usable as "one of two"
sources verifying a claim.
    Every active editor knows that not all articles -- not even all
finished-looking articles -- are equally reliable.  Most of us have
our own reflexive "can I trust this revision" routines - scanning for
format quirks, or signs that a true style-guide expert has been here,
checking the talk page, checking the recent history.
    We must find better ways to float this information up to the casual user.

SJ

[1] NB: if we fix our referencing system, this will no longer be true.

On 12/7/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> If true, oh crap:
>
> From: [New York Times business editor] Larry Ingrassia
> To: [Business staff]
> Subject: wiki-whatdia?
>
> Colleagues,
>
> You probably saw Kit Seelye's smart Week-in-Review story about inaccurate information in
> Wikipedia. In case you didn't, please take a look. Since the story ran, she has received a number
> of e-mail messages about other inaccurate information on Wikipedia. We shouldn't be using it to
> check any information that goes into the newspaper.
>
> Larry
>
> From: http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10748
>
> -- mav
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
++SJ