I think it is too important to be dismissive about this approach. Even correctly cited things can be removed or butchered, even incorrectly cited things can stay on. I'm not sure that increased calls for citation will solve or even mitigate the problem. Any academic can tell you that citation is hardly a gold standard; it is not what convinces people of the accuracy of any claim. In the end that comes down to trust, and that comes down to authorship, and that comes down to things that Wikipedia doesn't, won't, and maybe can't do right.
At this point, Wikipedia's epistemology privileges the persistant, the dedicated, and those with a lot of free time on their hands. Which is a set of qualities which describes both the best _and_ the worst editors.
I don't have an answer though. Just something to muse on, in the face of some rather derisive high-brow publicity from an immensely popular, immensely intelligent person.
FF
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Persistence can win over truth and neutrality - unless the persistent one is so blatantly inserting falsehoods that he is identified as a vandal and blocked.
On high profile articles this matters not, as the persistence of the one pov-pusher will be undone by the more apathetic action of the many.
The problem is with low notability articles, where one persistent pusher can own the article for months or years.
To harp back on to my subject of bios, here there is a real problem, not of the outright libeler but one someone persistently making sure the article includes all negative commentary (often well cited) and no positive. These hatchet jobs are a real problem as what really need is someone to equally persistently research the other side and then keep it balanced. The admin called to the scene seldom had the time or interest.
Maybe that is just what wikipedia is. We have a great system that can produce great articles in fairly uncontroversial subjects, or at its best controversial ones where there is a large group of people with a cross-section of views interested. But we are crap at low-notability controversial subjects, and particularly bios. Maybe trying to change policies to correct that systemic fact is misguided.
However, the conclusion to that may well be to say that *if open, inclusive, wikis can't do this type of thing, then we should stop trying*......Maybe we need a different type of project to do low-notability bios, one that is willing to say - *where we can't have a decent fair bio, we should have no bio at all*.
Should we stop trying to be anything other than a wiki - but now accept the limits of that method.
Doc