On 10/29/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/29/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner(a)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.
1. 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.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
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