Message: 4 Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 03:16:31 -0600 From: "Ira Stoll" irastoll@hotmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy Suggestions To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: Law12-F47IGOHE44UQu0001b8be@hotmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
That's exactly what I'm getting at. The wikipedia should be packed with clickable citations.The reason why I've always loved encyclopedias so much is the quality of the information, and the impartial manner in which it was presented. Citations (particularly linkable) bring with them evidence for belief, and an option for the reader to learn further, investigate for themselves (by clicking on it). A basic of polite discourse (and a policy in my debate club) was to accept another's argument so long as it is logical, and to accept their premise so long as you could not disprove it (like thru a citation). What I Don't like about the wikipedia is when the truth (or a way of interpreting it) is removed from an article, regardless of the quality of citation, due to overriding majority POV. My suggestions are meant to address that. JackLynch
I agree completely. Lack of citation and traceability is IMHO a big glaring deficiency in traditional encyclopedias, and it's one that should be remediable in a hypertext encyclopedia. (However, like so much about Wikipedia, there's no big barrier to "just doing it" and hoping that others will follow suit. Much as I'd like better Wiki-apparatus for the purpose).
As for "Wikipedia is not a list of citations"—fine; neither is Lauren Hillenbrand's "Seabiscuit: An American Legend," but every darn statement she make in that readable, popular bestseller is documented and attributed.
The omniscient viewpoint adopted by textbooks below the college level and encyclopedias is intellectually dishonest. When an educated person reads any factual matter, the question "Why should I believe this?" is (or should always be) in the back of their mind. "Because it's in a book and 'they' wouldn't print it if it weren't true?" "Because the style of writing gives me the impression the author knows what he's talking about?"
Verifiability is important. (And it's just as important for noncontroversial facts as for controversial facts).
One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that it gives us an opportunity to think about the nature of knowledge and authority.
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@world.std.com alternate: dpbsmith@alum.mit.edu "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/