Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/1/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, it doesn't. However, it does mean that a phone book isn't a *reliable* source.
I don't think it's ever been stated that Wikipedia only incorporates material from known, infallible sources. Our minimum requirements are much more vague however - words like "reliable" and "verifiable" get used a lot, but with no clear definition.
Given that, providing the source of all information and taking steps not to ridiculously misuse sources (eg, quoting speculative material
from a tabloid and presenting it as established fact), is what we
should be aiming for. So far, we're not even close.
I essentially agree. Some people still argue that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. On the other hand "Scientific American" for this month used [[Sudoku]] as a reference in an article on the same subject.
Wikipedia *isn't* a reliable source. I certainly don't think it should be used as a reference in another encyclopedia article.
Unless Scientific American was using the Wikipedia article for a trivial piece of information which is already obvious, I think they made a big mistake. Even Jimbo has said that Wikipedia shouldn't be used, for instance, as a reference in an academic paper.
It's not Jimbo's call. It's up to the editorial staff of the magazine that is considering use of the Wikipedia material. We use references to the 1911 Britannica. They may be out of date, but for some subjects they are as accurate as anything else.
Ec