http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060411/COLUMNISTS04/...
"Every time I look up something I know a bit about, I find errors."
In a summary, it's a nice little rant with some pointers to articles that might need cleanup (or NPOV protection from dear Warren)
Mathias
He's pretty cluey. He reckons some Wikipedia editors have no professional editing experience at all.
Steve
On 4/11/06, Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de wrote:
http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060411/COLUMNISTS04/...
"Every time I look up something I know a bit about, I find errors."
In a summary, it's a nice little rant with some pointers to articles that might need cleanup (or NPOV protection from dear Warren)
Mathias _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
----- Original Message ---- From: Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 9:36:55 AM Subject: [WikiEN-l] FYI: Daily Record: Wikipedia site filled with major mistakes
http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060411/COLUMNISTS04/... "Every time I look up something I know a bit about, I find errors."
In a summary, it's a nice little rant with some pointers to articles that might need cleanup (or NPOV protection from dear Warren)
Hmm...in the bit about Barry Goldwater he seems to be a disgruntled person not familiar with our policies on citing sources and our normal venues for article discussion (and is rude and obnoxious about it, to boot). After having his addition removed from the article, he (Warren Boroson) writes:
"[A Wikipedia editor] never contacted me directly, as he should have; he just high-handedly dismissed my note, going on and on like a nutcase about: Where's the evidence? Well, if that yahoo had written to me, as he should have, I would have replied: I was a primary source. I was the magazine's managing editor."
It seems he's referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barry_Goldwater#Libel_and_sanity
In which case, yes -- he needs to provide a verifiable source (we can't take his word for it), and the talk page is the appropriate page to discuss it.
Best of all, he closes his piece with:
"I suspect that whoever edited my contribution had no professional editing experience whatsoever. I suspect, in fact, that if he went to college, he must have majored in."
-- Matt [[User:Matt Crypto]]
On 4/11/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Hmm...in the bit about Barry Goldwater he seems to be a disgruntled person not familiar with our policies on citing sources and our normal venues for article discussion (and is rude and obnoxious about it, to boot). After having his addition removed from the article, he (Warren Boroson) writes:
To me, it's another example of Wikipedia being perceived as something which it is not, which is basically our fault. The two biggest misconceptions here are: a) that Wikipedia is an "encyclopaedia" with fact checking and editorial standards against publishing anything that is not known to be true b) that Wikipedia has "editors" who are "in charge" of its articles. This is particularly unfortunate - we use the term "editor" in the sense of someone who uses a text editor, rather than as a term of managerial responsibility.
I would like us to do something about these misconceptions, but I think I'm in the minority.
Steve
stevage@gmail.com wrote:
To me, it's another example of Wikipedia being perceived as something which it is not, which is basically our fault. The two biggest misconceptions here are: a) that Wikipedia is an "encyclopaedia" with fact checking and editorial standards against publishing anything that is not known to be true
Er, that's not a misconception! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we do have fact checking, and we do have editorial standards. The verifiability policy is a mechanism to ensure we publish trustworthy information. And that's exactly why Boroson's addition was removed. If he had any insight, he would have commended Wikipedia for asking for sources, rather than taking him (an anonymous editor) at his word.
-- Matt
On 4/11/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
stevage@gmail.com wrote:
To me, it's another example of Wikipedia being perceived as something which it is not, which is basically our fault. The two biggest misconceptions here are: a) that Wikipedia is an "encyclopaedia" with fact checking and editorial standards against publishing anything that is not known to be true
Er, that's not a misconception! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we do have fact checking, and we do have editorial standards. The verifiability policy is a mechanism to ensure we publish trustworthy information. And that's exactly why Boroson's addition was removed. If he had any insight, he would have commended Wikipedia for asking for sources, rather than taking him (an anonymous editor) at his word.
Ok, "fact checking and editorial standards applied *before* publish anything"...
Steve
"Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com wrote in message news:f1c3529e0604110433j2b55a7e1kbdb534919feea969@mail.gmail.com...
On 4/11/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
stevage@gmail.com wrote:
To me, it's another example of Wikipedia being perceived as something which it is not, which is basically our fault. The two biggest misconceptions here are: a) that Wikipedia is an "encyclopaedia" with fact checking and editorial standards against publishing anything that is not known to be true
Er, that's not a misconception! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we do have fact checking, and we do have editorial standards. The
verifiability policy is a mechanism to ensure we publish trustworthy information. And that's exactly why Boroson's addition was removed. If he had any insight, he would have commended Wikipedia for asking for sources, rather than taking him (an anonymous editor) at his word.
Ok, "fact checking and editorial standards applied *before* publish anything"...
Steve
Warren Boroson's corrected contribution is restored. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barry_Goldwater#Libel_and_sanity His name is spelled wrong, however.