On 11/21/05, Brown, Darin <Darin.Brown(a)enmu.edu> wrote:
Now, let's examine what kind of
"reasoning" is going on here:
Almost nothing has been written on this article at the moment, (2 lines),
yet someone is already taking pre-emptive measures to assert that this
person's writings (none of whose claims have even been articulated in the
article) are false before the article is "finalized or posted". Just the
wording there tells me this is someone completely unfamiliar with wikipedia.
On top of this, this nonsense about a "bibliography being false", confusing
it with the claims in the elements of the bibliography. You could use this
against anyone. You could say, "well, we shouldn't have articles on
holocaust deniers, because their bibliographies (sic) are false". Their
bibliographies are NOT FALSE -- holocaust deniers may be spouting incredibly
false statements, but the existence of their publications is not "false". I
am shocked at the lack of basic logic and reasoning used at this talk page
and elsewhere.
People appear to be being sceptical. You want a facturaly correct
wikipedia that is the price you have to pay.
Note also the fact that the New York Native has no
wikipedia is article is
used as "evidence". This is even worse than googling and alexa rankings. As
I've said before, ignorance knows no bounds, and nothing will stop people
from pontificating about things which they're completely ignorant of.
For western subjects the "has wikipedia heard of anthing related to
this guy" is quite a good test. If you ever go through AFD deleted
articles tend to be orphans. While this of course breaks down when it
it comes to non western topics the shear level of coverage of western
topics does make it a vaguely useful thing to cheack
Of course, what do I care. Episodes like this have
already driven me leaving
wikipedia for now, creating a new wikicity and consulting wikipedia just to
copy stuff to it.
darin
Fine. As long as you stay within the terms of the GDFL we can still
use anything you produce.
--
geni