<stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
To me, it's another example of Wikipedia being
perceived as something
which it is not, which is basically our fault. The two biggest
misconceptions here are:
a) that Wikipedia is an "encyclopaedia" with fact checking and
editorial standards against publishing anything that is not known to
be true
Er, that's not a misconception! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we do have fact
checking, and we do have editorial standards. The verifiability policy is a mechanism to
ensure we publish trustworthy information. And that's exactly why Boroson's
addition was removed. If he had any insight, he would have commended Wikipedia for asking
for sources, rather than taking him (an anonymous editor) at his word.
-- Matt