On 1/14/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene(a)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