On 7/9/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/10/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik, the important point about newspapers is that all but the tiniest have processes in place to detect errors, and particularly legal problems, prior to publication. We can only hope they use the processes correctly; if they don't, that's not our fault. But Wikipedia has no such process, which is why we rely on what we call "reliable sources" who do.
Our own history is an example. Virtually all of it is documented through electronic mailing lists and edits to the wiki. It is possible to fake mailing list posts just like it is possible to fake them on Usenet. So, are we going to dispute that Larry Sanger wrote the "Let's make a wiki" post on those grounds?
We need to be very careful that dogma does not take the place of common sense.
The policy is based on common sense, not dogma. When you send a letter to a newspaper for publication, you're expected to supply your name, address, and telephone number so that someone from the newspaper can check that you really did send it. Nothing like that exists for Usenet. It's all very well to say that if X didn't write the post, and we quote from it, X will tell us soon enough. But what happens if X claims that, in purporting to quote him, and in leaving that unchecked quote on Wikipedia for months until he spotted it, we have damaged him in some way? Newspapers have processes in place to avoid this scenario, and they have libel insurance for when things go wrong. We have none of those things, which is why we piggy-back on other people's, by using only material that has already been checked.
Sarah