With all this talk about referencing, I decided to take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check
and I was surprised to see that unlike stubs and deletion debates articles
lacking references weren't sorted or even listed by topic. If articles that
need references are sorted or listed by topic, it means you will attract the
people most likely to know where to find references and willing to add them.
This project needs some extension that somehow sends of notices to the
relevant WikiProject when a certain article is tagged.
Secondly, I only found this project through the list of WikiProjects. I
couldn't remember its exact name and visiting some help pages on referencing
left me empty handed. This project should be linked all over the reference
help pages and possibly get some redirects from likely titles.
Thirdly, people are more likely to do something if they feel they get
rewarded for it. Look at the people who go through the heavy FA procedure.
Most of them do it simply to see an article they like or worked on on the
Main Page. And each time I get a barnstar, I still get a warm fuzzy feeling
of appreciation inside. *Rewards can get a lot of work done.*
I couldn't find a referencing barnstar. One should be created to encourage
people to go ahead and do it and if such a barnstar exists, it should be
made more prominent.
And finally, I'm thinking ahead. If somehow we can get every article sourced
we need to look at our next problem. It won't be lack of sources but
accuracy of sources that will be our next problem. Vandals will alter
sources or people will make apparently sourced claims where the link or book
reference doesn't actually back up the claim. We should start thinking on
how to handle that so we don't run into problems if we ever manage to get
there.
Mgm
On 31 Mar 2007 at 13:06, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 2) introducing a strong quality threshold, where we don't include, or
> swiftly delete, articles that aren't currently up to it. Yes, in theory
> they can be fixed, and if someone is actually willing to do it, then
> fine; but most wont be fixed and should not hang around 'because in an
> ideal wiki we'd fix them'
But if you cut off the bottom few rungs of a ladder, then nobody will
ever be able to climb it. There may be a lot of topics on which
there will some day be a really great article if you let somebody
start with a crappy article, and others improve into a slightly less
crappy article, and so on. If you have unreasonably high standards
from the start, then no article will even get started.
> We need a reality check here, folks.
Perhaps your reality check just bounced... :-)
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Something humourous I've found in my spam inbox - an email from "trademark
Wikimedia" offering me "top quality medicine". I know about exotic names
used in spam emails, but I'd never thought "Wikimedia" would be one. The
scary thing is, I think this has happened before.
Oh well, now we're truly famous.
Sceptre
On 31 Mar 2007 at 18:16, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > On 3/30/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
> >> geni wrote:
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28news%29#Robert_Mugab…
> >> So that's the best example I have seen in a while.
> >
> > BLP won't solve that problem.
>
> This is exactly the kind of negative information without valid sources
> that I am strongly encouraging people to remove on sight. So, except
> for unrealistic definitions of the word "solve", I think BLP does in
> fact help a great deal.
Saying that somebody's daughter is attending a prestigious
educational institution isn't obviously, intrinsically, negative,
without more context about the complex political issues involved in
this case. And determining that the sources given here are invalid
takes a bit of (unoriginal?) research. Thus, this is the sort of
thing that can easily survive a superficial look, even under a regime
requiring strict sourcing of negative information on living persons.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
[Delurking to ask a question that might be illuminating]
Can I use this thread to ask a question as a "worked example"?
*Procedurally*, what was the way in which "nofollow" was added to
external links? My impression was that Wales just said to do it, and
it was done, even though there was no "community consensus". Now, I'm
not saying it was the wrong thing to do. But from an outsider's
perspective, it was pretty much an instance of "He's the decider".
FYI, to dispose of a myth, there was no SEO contest targeting
Wikipedia. The SEO contest in the news had specifically ruled out such
"black hat" tactics, and would have disqualified anyone caught using them.
Much of the talk of Wikipedia's governance tends to be along
the lines of "How many divisions does the Pope have?". It's true that
the Pope is the Pope only and solely because many people believe in
him and trust him. And a dissatisfied group could break off and decide
they want a new Pope, or no Pope at all. It's happened before in history.
But that all sort of misses the point. ALL governance, by definition,
is a social construct, which works only because enough people believe
in it. The deeper questions are what benefits there are to believing
in it, and what sanctions can be imposed for not believing in it.
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php
On 3/30/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > On 3/30/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> Anthony wrote:
> >>> On 3/30/07, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> >>>> With that in mind, I do think we have the resources, and accomplishing
> >>>> it would be really simple. Just set a hard and fast rule that
> >>>> everything in an article must be sourced, and then make it clear that
> >>>> removal of unsourced statements is exempt from the three revert rule.
> >>>>
> >>> OK, apparently this is already the case, at least for biographies of
> >>> living people, according to wp:3rr.
> >>>
> >>> So I guess I'm wrong.
> >> And also in this particular instance the false information _was_ sourced. :)
> >>
> > Which instance, the one about Ellen Fanning?
> >
>
> The one about Mugabe's daughter.
>
Ah, I see. I was still replying on the original incident pointed out
by Jimbo. I guess I was behind on this discussion :).
Sourcing seems to be necessary but not sufficient. So it's not a
complete rule. And the other parts are much more tricky. If the
source is completely unreliable, then it's best to leave the fact out
completely. If the source is somewhat reliable, then you can state
the fact with attribution to the source. But where do you draw the
line between what should be left out, what should be attributed, and
what should be simply stated as fact?
NPOV and consensus are good principles to strive for in this regard,
but I'd argue that they're unachievable goals. In this respect I
think Larry Sanger has a great theory - let anyone contribute and try
to reach consensus, then let the experts settle the disputes which
inevitably arise.
Of course, I've already admitted that I'm dead wrong in my thinking on
this matter. So best to just ignore my thoughts here, I suppose.
Anthony
Will wrote:
> Something humourous I've found in my spam inbox - an email from
> "trademark
> Wikimedia" offering me "top quality medicine". I know about exotic
> names
> used in spam emails, but I'd never thought "Wikimedia" would be
> one. The
> scary thing is, I think this has happened before.
Lately spammers have started using current news headlines as the
subject lines in their emails as a way of getting people to open
them. I actually got a Viagra ad a few days ago with the subject
line, "Wikipedia founder plans search engine."
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
| The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
| https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118
--------------------------------
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Slim Virgin [mailto:slimvirgin@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 06:47 PM
>To: fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info, 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun
>
>On 3/29/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>> If the information does not have a specific source attached to it such as a page in a book or the equivalent, it is unsourced. You are not obligated to read whole books when no page is given. The priority needs to go to 4) Remove all unsourced harmful or extremely dubious sounding material
>> >from biographies, and unsourced harmful material from other articles and probably extends to removing such material when that is all that is in the article, even if it is sourced.
>>
>The problem with living bios goes beyond unsourced material.
>Everything in a bio could be sourced and it might still be an unfair
>portrait of the person. Then there's the problem of Wikpedia editors
>hunting down every tiny bit of published material from decades ago,
>thereby reviving stories that were long dead, or posting something
>that was published only in a local newspaper, thereby turning it into
>an international story.
>
>But if you try to remove material like that from a bio, or delete a
>bio entirely because it's inherently unfair, a great hue and cry goes
>up about censorship, and a revert war begins.
>
>Sarah
Yep, that's what happens, but folks need to know that one side is right, the other side wrong. There is no limit to removal of unsourced crap. Repeatedly putting crap back in will, eventually, result in sanctions.
Fred
Folks, the key words to research this topic are called
"section 230". It's a well-known and controversial debate.
(disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer).
Wikipedia's lawyer will certainly tell you that Wikipedia is
completely protected under this theory, as it is his or her job to
say that (as indeed, has happened). Others, well, are not convinced,
to varying degrees of expertise in the topic. I have a blog post on it:
http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001064.html
The wild card in the legal theorizing is whether Wikipedia's
effect might finally be enough to get the law *changed* by Congress, to
clarify that liability. It won't happen from the trashing of some
activists, or even minor celebrities. But if someone with enough
political influence decides to pursue the matter, I do think there
would be a base of support. There's certainly enough of a "parade of
horribles" to fuel an issue.
Right now, nobody powerful really wants to set off the legal
conflagration, because of the uncertainly of the outcome. But the more
people Wikipedia affects, the more likely that legal war will
eventually happen.
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php
Uhm, is it just me, or is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Checkuser_requ…
very, very bad idea? I think it's fairly obvious why it probably
wasn't so
bright to make that an open, free-for-all page. Especially if the
community's not going to have any say and it'll just be the Arbs appointing
Checkusers, then what exactly is the use of that page? The arbs could have
easily just approached people and announce it. This will probably degenerate
into a farce - I already see at least one name on there who hasn't even been
contributing very long to this project, and isn't an admin.
NSLE