On 1/14/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm schreef:
How is someone else to know your information is reliable when you don't
cite
your sources?
Yes, that is a good example of the emphasis on reliability at the cost of usefulness.
Really, citing sources is better for the reliability of the article.
Yes. Citing sources is better. That in no way contradicts my main point:
Adding unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing.
Eugene
"This is part of a wider trend towards "reliability" at the cost of "usefulness". By deleting uncontroversial but unsourced statements and articles, of course we increase Wikipedia's reliability, because a part of this unsourced information is not true. But most of that deleted material is true, and useful for the reader of that article."
At some point, though, Wikipedia has to decide what it is, a reliable source of information on the Internet, or a place for its editors. At one of the top 10 sites, it should be leaning towards the former, with, eventually, all information reliable and sourced.
Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."
A lot of the obvious solutions (all information has to be sourced) detract from what I see as the primary Wikipedia force that will eventually make it THE most useful site on the Internet: anyone can edit.
KP