Is it too much to ask that contributions to Wikipedia be correct? That is
news to me.
Danny
In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:04:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com writes:
It is too high
because you insist on contributions to be unchallengeable.
The one bonus I found so far is the increased dialog between editors, in an
effort to improve the new articles. This can only be beneficial.
I'd personally recommend extending this to a week long trial.
Currently, an IP is either banned or unbanned. What if we had a middle
ground for problem IPs, which didn't allow them to create new articles, only
edit existing ones. It wouldn't be a cure-all, but it might be interesting
concept to play with.
Nick
All-
The last several dozen messages on this list regarding
Wikipedia citation policy were prompted by Brian's
re-posting of a message I had sent earlier in the week
proposing a change to the page renderer whereby all
factual assertions within an article would
automatically be flagged (say, using red high-lights)
if they were un-sourced. I am truly gratified by the
huge debate which this suggestion has already
generated, and especially grateful to Brian for seeing
enough value in my idea to bring it again to every
one's attention.
This exchange has been truly productive, and the
disagreements that have been aired are, I think, more
apparent than real. One common misconception is that
those of us who are pushing for stronger citation
standards are doing so because we believe in citation
for its own sake, or because we want to blindly mimic
"real encyclopedias", or else because we are in some
way elitist or credentialist and always believe in
deferring to expert opinion.
What has gotten lost in the exchange, I think, is the
fact that those of us advocating a strong citation
policy are doing so only as a means to an end, with
that end being objectivity. The point of an
encyclopedia is to contain objective knowledge,
knowledge which any reasonable person could
potentially confirm by visiting the evidence provided
for it. Ideally such evidence should be as unmediated
and "direct" as possible, but in practice this often
means deferring to an expert authority, because we
either lack the means or skill to reproduce or
interpret this evidence ourselves. This is a
necessary evil, but greatly ameliorated by the fact
that all reputable scholars meticulously document
their results, allowing anyone to reproduce their
evidence later on. Anyone who's read scholarly
journals or monographs knows it is not uncommon for
the footnotes and bibliography (i.e. the evidence) to
take up more pages than the actual text (i.e. the
interpretation)!
Now, just because I think it's valuable to replicate
academic standards of evidence and objectivity does
not mean I think we should blindly reproduce academic
visual/typographic conventions. Just because scholars
put bibliographical/reference sections at the end of
their articles, or make their text unreadable with
lots of footnotes does not mean I think Wikipedia
should also. Let's collect the same data, but think
of better ways to present it. Isn't it ironic that,
memex, the forerunner of hypertext, was thought up
because of the limitations of paper-based scholarship,
and yet we're still talking about how to reproduce
those same limitations within the web browser?
I'm sorry if a lot of this is obvious, but hopefully
the next point is less so- which is that objectivity,
which requires evidence, one means to which happens to
be citation- is not just a scholarly imperative, but
also a moral one. Without objectivity, and the faith
that other people experience the world in roughly the
same ways we do, cooperation and this thing we call
community is impossible. Everyone just does whatever
it is they want and never stop to consider how this
affects other people because without objectivity
knowledge of other people is by definition impossible.
To those who thus maintain that greater standards of
objectivity will damage community within Wikipedia, I
ask you to explain the [[Jihad]] article on the
English language site. This is not an obscure
article; it has gone through 100's, if not 1000's, of
edits and is in the top-10 results list when Googling
on its keyword. Yet this article is a perfect example
of community dysfunction; it is reverted constantly;
it is locked almost weekly; and yet despite all this
activity it is getting worse over time. Because there
is no agreement on what this term even means, the
article is getting shorter and shorter as more and
more of its "controversial" material is shunted off to
sub-articles, where the process repeats itself (see
[[Rules of war in Islam]], under a neutrality alert as
I write). The problem here (leaving aside anonymous
vandals), is not community, it is objectivity. The
warring editors behave unconstructively not because
they mean badly, necessarily, but because they're
trapped in an epistemological hell. It's not only
that there's not enough objective evidence provided
for each assertion, it's that people have no idea
where to find such evidence, or even have the basis
with which to recognize it as such. Thus the
impossibility of consensus, and a continuing edit war
until the article is whittled down to a links page.
Yet isn't the damage done to community, here- in terms
of anger and frustration, in terms of factionalism, in
terms of loss of goodwill and trust- even greater than
that done to knowledge?
I've been working on a new project proposal which I've
deferred announcing on this list partly because I
wanted to do some more polishing to it, but mainly
because it relied upon an enhancement to the software
(i.e. [[m:Wikidata]]) whose completion date was still
a ways off. However, now seems as good a time as any
to make an announcement, so let me provide an
overview. Much of it is identical to SJ's proposal
here and in [[m:Wikicite]].
Phase 1: Toward a more reliable Wikipedia
Citation mark-up is introduced which holds a pointer
to an enclosed factual assertion's proof; proof is
provided via either reference to another work, or with
direct evidence (a photograph, eye-witness testimony,
etc.) when appropriate for the claim. The article
renderer then highlights "evidence holes" with a
distinct, attention-grabbing style that alerts both
readers and editors. Such "footnotes" may be hidden
in the main article, but visible through a new tab
which renders them in a useful graph format. Perhaps
as part of article rating, citations must be confirmed
by the checker; data regarding which assertions were
verified is stored with other article rating
attributes.
Phase 2: Creation of a citation database/authority
text map
Each citation within a Wikipedia article is now
automatically saved within a [[m:Wikidata]] text
relationship database. A text relationship joins two
"[[w:texts]]", and among its other attributes has one
called TYPE. In the case of a Wikpedia citation, TYPE
is by default a positive evidentiary citation- the
Wikipedia article uses the cited book, document,
photograph, etc. as proof of some fact. Yet there are
many other sorts of text relationships, the most
obvious kind being negative citations- one work
attacks the authority of another.
As Wikipedia editors do their research and follow the
citations of those works which they themselves cite,
they are able to create "authority maps" for
literature within various scholarly fields. What is
considered authoritative? What is considered outdated?
They record this information into the text
relationship database. They are not merely copying
other's footnotes, though, since a text relationship
does not have to be "verbalized" within a text. If
they know a particular work contradicts some evidence,
for example, let them record it and so rightly
diminish the work's authority.
Eventually the Wikidata text relationship database
becomes a hugely valuable scholarly tool in its own
right, and acts as the first resort for Wikipedia
editors doing research. Formulas are developed which
rate sources/evidence: incoming positive citations are
good; incoming negative ones are bad. Lots of less
obvious factors like age are considered- a 50 year old
work that's still constantly invoked is probably
particularly sound. Other formula factors are
identified, though anyone can potentially create their
own formulas to run against the data.
Phase 3: The honing of Wikipedia
Using the text relationship database, editors can now
see at a glance what is authoritative within a
particular literature. The article renderer now takes
source quality (generated by the formulas discussed
above) into consideration when rendering each section
of an article. Those parts of the article relying on
weak, discredited, or out-dated sources are flagged
with one style, while perhaps especially credible
sources are "commended" using another. Hopefully a
virtuous circle begins- a citation based upon a work
of popular history is exchanged for one relying upon a
more specialized work, which is later exchanged for a
scholarly monograph or journal article, which in turn
encourages reference to primary sources, etc. By this
process Wikipedia becomes not just accurate, but
scholarly and state-of-the-knowledge.
Please see the following for more details about this
project:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTextrosehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicite
Thank you for your time and sorry for the long e-mail.
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
SJ wrote:
>> When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into connection
>> to people editing and adding contents - it must be seen as something
>> separate - many people are not able to "separate" things themselves
>> they will combine and make something different out of all this.
>
> What does this mean? How can citations be separate from adding content?
> Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from; other
> people can do nothing but guess.
Why does it matter where it came from? Except in cases where you're
dealing with a primary source and it's essential to check the original,
the choice of sources is just as subject to editing as the content. If I
add content and cite a pathetically bad source, the source does not need
to stay in the article even if it happens to be right (if it happens to
be wrong and represents a significant point of view might be another
matter). Other people can find other and often better sources even if
they're unable to determine what the initial source was, and if the case
involves a primary source then the information inherently points to
where you need to look.
Many people don't seem to understand this and think there's some kind of
rule that once a source has been used in the writing of an article, it
must be cited or preserved in a References section for all time. Even
normal scholarly practice doesn't require this (else probably most
Wikipedia articles would need to cite other Wikipedia articles as
references), and we in particular should be able to get past such
limited ways of thinking. One of the virtues of our collaborative system
is that there is very little need to try and divine the intent of an
original author, and we needn't be beholden to that person in terms of
choosing sources either.
--Michael Snow
Before we make some official announcement in English, I would like to
say a few words about new local chapter:
We held two sessions of our assembly. The first one was formal when we
accepted our bylaws and chose presidium. (We decided that to avoid
explanation to our authorities that we would hold our sessions over
Internet.)
The second session was less formal and during this session some of our
decisions were:
- We accepted statute of our assembly (where we explained that we can
hold our sessions over Internet).
- We constituted other bodies of our organization: executive board and
supervision board.
- We constituted two regional boards: for Vojvodina and for Belgrade
(in this moment we have relevant number of members only from these two
regions).
- We constituted three expert boards: for informatics, linguistics and
natural sciences (in this moment we have relevant number of members
only in these fields).
- We elected Jimmy Wales, Angela Beesley, Florence Nibart-Devouar
(Anthere) and Delphine Ménard (Notafish) as honorary members of
Wikimedia SCG for a life.
- We elected Jimmy Wales as honorary president of Wikimedia SCG
regional board for USA :) for a life.
Also, it should be noted that our members are two important public
persons: The first one is Vladimir Ajdacic, nuclear physicist and a
member of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (who became the
president of our Expert board for natural sciences); the second one is
Dragan Ambrozic, the most important organizer of pop culture events in
Belgrade (who became our vice-president).
I've already complained about what Jimbo has been doing on Wikibooks, so
this isn't news.
Several of the Wikibooks that Jimbo was complaining about were deleted
by him with the admin status he gave himself. That by itself is OK, but
he did it with a total disregard to the fact that ongoing community
discussion about the modules is going on, and a complete ignorance of
what it means to delete a Wikibook in its entirety. Deleting Wikibooks
is a very involved process, and removing [[b:Jokebook]] is going to be
something that will take several hours to complete by a competent admin
and deleting the front page is only going to make things worse.
I don't want to get into an edit war with of all people Jimbo himself,
but this IMHO has gone way too far. If he wants to serve some sort of
political agenda and disregard the genuine efforts of the community that
is building Wikimedia projects like Wikibooks, so be it. He can write
everything himself there if he wants to as well.
So long Wikimedia and all of the people here. I have tried. I hope
things improve for the better in the future.
I hereby resign my position as admin on Wikibooks and I anticipate that
I will be banned there as well. Good luck in the future in ever trying
to find people to keep this project going.
--
Robert Scott Horning
SJ wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> SJ wrote:
>>
>>>> When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into
>>>> connection to people editing and adding contents - it must be seen
>>>> as something separate - many people are not able to "separate"
>>>> things themselves they will combine and make something different
>>>> out of all this.
>>>
>>> What does this mean? How can citations be separate from adding
>>> content?
>>> Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from;
>>> other people can do nothing but guess.
>>
>> Why does it matter where it came from? Except in cases where you're
>> dealing with a primary source and it's essential to check the
>> original, the choice of sources is just as subject to editing as the
>> content. If I add content and
>
> Don't misunderstand me; I mean that the original author can fairly
> effortlessly add a line about his/her source; whereas the next reader
> to come along will have to do significantly more work to find a
> relevant source and cite it.
>
> Of course sources need to change, early sources should be replaced by
> better ones, etc.
Right, I understand that wasn't precisely what you meant, but I was
arguing against possible implications of the way you approached it. The
reason I did that (and "misunderstood" you in the process) is because
many people, unlike you, misunderstand the use of sources. I've seen too
many occasions where somebody objected to getting rid of a poor-quality
source because some past author had used it, even if the article could
be supported just as well from other and better sources.
So my comments were directed at those people generally, perhaps to
little effect since most people on this list know better. Your message
just gave me an opportunity to vent.
--Michael Snow
In light of the recent USA Today article:
In the same way that we are currently enforcing proper image tags using
a bot, could we do the same with unsourced articles? Start out by
placing {{unsourced}} in all the articles lacking sources, and then, if
it is not sourced in a week, create something like the {{copvio}}
page-replacer to hide the unsourced content (the entire article),
explaining with a detailed message that the article must be thoroughly
sourced.
In my mind, at least, it doesn't seem like there should be any
difference between enforcing sources for images and sources for
articles. If anything we should be enforcing the latter more, since
articles form the basis of the encyclopedia. I know this won't solve
everything, but I think it should be a vital part of Wikipedia; since we
do not know who edits an article, we need to know that it is based on
information that we can verify ourselves.
brian0918
Ridicule? No. I am simply disappointed that you can even make such a
statement. It shows me that we have very radically different ideas about what an
encyclopedia is. Providing correct information is not something I am willing to
compromise. I had hoped that this sentiment was shared by all of Wikipedia's
editors and contributors.
Danny
In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:46:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com writes:
Hoi,
Why, you ridicule what I have said and I give a deserving answer. You
replied to a lengthy reply, I gave plenty of arguments. And this is all
you take out of it? You do not go into the arguments that were given.
>From my perspective in your previous post you had nothing to say.
Thanks,
GerardM
daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote:
>
> If that is the attitude, then I really have nothing more to say here.
>
> Danny
>
> In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:34:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com writes:
>
> Hoi,
> Yes it is. Other sources can be wrong as well and as I mentioned before
> you would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Is it too much to ask that contributions to Wikipedia be correct? That
is
>> news to me.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-