On 09/04/2008, woonpton(a)fastmail.fm <woonpton(a)fastmail.fm> wrote:
At the same time, I've come across a principle
asserted in several
arbitration decisions, to the effect that Wikipedia strives to be a
serious, high-quality
encyclopedia, and I'm confused. I can't tell whether Wikipedia intends
to be a serious encyclopedia, or whether Wikipedia is "about
verifiability, not about truth;" I don't see how Wikipedia can have
it both ways, as long as the slogan is widely interpreted by editors to
mean that
Wikipedia values verifiability even at the expense of accuracy or
credibility.
The arbcom tries not to write policy, but their understanding is worth
quoting as a supporting statement for a sane approach, even if it
doesn't have the winning power of a hand with four aces.
It's my impression that Wikipedia has become the
platform
of choice for ideas that have been rejected by most rational and
educated people, and that are not respected in academic or otherwise
reliable sources,
to gain a measure of credibility and legitimacy, and that those whose
purpose is to get this material
included in the encyclopedia are using the slogan as a way of deflecting
arguments against inclusion.
To some extent. [[Crank (person)]] used to have a great Bruce Sterling
quote about this (which I've just restored to the article):
"There's supposed to be a lot of difference between the hurtful online
statement "You're a moron," and the tastefully facetious statement
"You're a moron :-)". I question whether this is really the case,
emoticon or no. And even the emoticon doesn't help much in one's
halting interaction with the occasional online stranger who is, in
fact, gravely sociopathic. Online communication can wonderfully
liberate the tender soul of some well-meaning personage who, for
whatever reason, is physically uncharismatic. Unfortunately, online
communication also fertilizes the eccentricities of hopeless cranks,
who at last find themselves in firm possession of a wondrous soapbox
that the Trilateral Commission and the Men In Black had previously
denied them."
(
http://www.eff.org/Misc/Publications/Bruce_Sterling/Catscan_columns/catscan…)
- d.