On 6/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/1/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, it doesn't. However, it does mean that a phone book isn't a *reliable* source.
I don't think it's ever been stated that Wikipedia only incorporates material from known, infallible sources. Our minimum requirements are much more vague however - words like "reliable" and "verifiable" get used a lot, but with no clear definition.
Given that, providing the source of all information and taking steps not to ridiculously misuse sources (eg, quoting speculative material from a tabloid and presenting it as established fact), is what we should be aiming for. So far, we're not even close.
I essentially agree. Some people still argue that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. On the other hand "Scientific American" for this month used [[Sudoku]] as a reference in an article on the same subject.
Wikipedia *isn't* a reliable source. I certainly don't think it should be used as a reference in another encyclopedia article.
Unless Scientific American was using the Wikipedia article for a trivial piece of information which is already obvious, I think they made a big mistake. Even Jimbo has said that Wikipedia shouldn't be used, for instance, as a reference in an academic paper.
Anthony