On 10/29/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/29/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Sadly, that article isn't mentioned, making it harder to identify what went wrong there. But we ought take caution, once again, about [[WP:BITE]] - the anecdote of "I corrected this information but it got changed back to wrong" or "I contributed an article on topic X that I'm a clear expert on but it got gutted" is getting too common.
Let's think about why this is getting more common.
- We are getting more rigid about demanding sources/citations for new
material. This is necessary. I expect most academics who contribute, being used to being judged by their qualifications/reputation, will not cite and reference their work in the way Wikipedia demands. 2. We're getting more efficient at working out when these demands are not being fulfilled. This is also necessary. 3. We're getting more prominent and more people are making such attempts. This is a by-product of our success.
So let's not leap to damning ourselves here. I'm not saying that we haven't got improvements to work towards (we most certainly have), but we must not go too far the other way and pay deference towards academics for their qualifications rather than their contributions.
-- Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day folks,
Further to the excellent points made by Sam, this anon address had already submitted wrong information on a number of topics. People would be rightly suspicious of material put forward by this IP.
In addition, the problem is often with material submitted anonymously. What we often see is material from IP x not from Professor X in which case it is harder to take it on face value without reliable sources shown.
Regards to all
Keith Old