Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/1/05, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? Requiring a 'references' section for every article (thanking the heavens that WP is not paper), and reminding every editor that *every* new article should come with at least one reference, seems a responsible thing to do. Can you offer a reason not to have such a section for any article?
I meant that more than that is hard to automate. You're right that the bare minimals can be easily checked. However, I can't see that we can automate much beyond that with ease.
On en:, even that will help a *great* deal.
If you're writing about one of those topics that is a) not private research/analysis of your own, but b) has never been written about anywhere else [that you know of], then we need a new class of references : "personal observation by [user]", with a relevant tag not unlike the original-reporting templates used on Wikinews. Then it will be crystal clear that readers should visit your page, and see whether they trust you as the primary/original observer/author.
Much of this falls under 'original research', doesn't it? Or are you talking about the cases where someone believes that something is true but doesn't have the references to hand?
Either original research or that case. In that case, the personal observation should go on the talk page for others to find a good reference for.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/1/05, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? Requiring a 'references' section for every article (thanking the heavens that WP is not paper), and reminding every editor that *every* new article should come with at least one reference, seems a responsible thing to do. Can you offer a reason not to have such a section for any article?
I meant that more than that is hard to automate. You're right that the bare minimals can be easily checked. However, I can't see that we can automate much beyond that with ease.
On en:, even that will help a *great* deal.
For the article in question it would have accomplished nothing. A malicious person could have added a totally fictious reference to the "Atlantic Monthly" for December 1964, and no-one would have been wiser. Marshall may have had easy access to that issue to verify the fact or not, but unless he had occasion to look at the Seigenthaler article it would never occur to him to check it out.
A precondition to fixing the article would be to read it critically in the first place. The spelling error could have been caught by a bot, and corrected by a person focused only on correcting spelling errors without needing to read the article.
The statement in the article was certainly offensive, but not likely libellous. It stated that there were claims that Seigenthaler was involved in the assassinations, and that those claims were shown to be wrong. It did not say that he was in fact involved. Early claims about the Oklahoma City bombing were that it was the work of terrorists from the Middle East. The simple fact that such claims were being made is a credible one, just as much as the comment that they were soon shown to be false.
What needed checking and referencing was the specific claim about his involvement in the assassinations. A bibliographic note at the end would not have sufficed. If it turns out that some reasonably reputable publication did run these comments (including mention of exonoration) in 1964 where would that put us?
The media are not always kind to those whom they perceive to be guilty. A dramatic takedown and arrest is good for the TV ratings. The meticulous evidence that exculpates someone has the show stopping impact of drying paint. (Now that golf is popular on television, and even has its own channel, maybe times are changing. ;-) ) Unfortunately, even false rumours become part of the historical weave.
Ec
It may cause some different problems (like verifying the existence and reliability of mentioned sources, but requiring sources on new articles isn't at all unreasonable.
Mgm
On 12/2/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/1/05, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? Requiring a 'references' section for every article (thanking the heavens that WP is not paper), and reminding every editor that *every* new article should come with at least one reference, seems a responsible thing to do. Can you offer a reason not to have such a section for any article?
I meant that more than that is hard to automate. You're right that the bare minimals can be easily checked. However, I can't see that we can automate much beyond that with ease.
On en:, even that will help a *great* deal.
For the article in question it would have accomplished nothing. A malicious person could have added a totally fictious reference to the "Atlantic Monthly" for December 1964, and no-one would have been wiser. Marshall may have had easy access to that issue to verify the fact or not, but unless he had occasion to look at the Seigenthaler article it would never occur to him to check it out.
A precondition to fixing the article would be to read it critically in the first place. The spelling error could have been caught by a bot, and corrected by a person focused only on correcting spelling errors without needing to read the article.
The statement in the article was certainly offensive, but not likely libellous. It stated that there were claims that Seigenthaler was involved in the assassinations, and that those claims were shown to be wrong. It did not say that he was in fact involved. Early claims about the Oklahoma City bombing were that it was the work of terrorists from the Middle East. The simple fact that such claims were being made is a credible one, just as much as the comment that they were soon shown to be false.
What needed checking and referencing was the specific claim about his involvement in the assassinations. A bibliographic note at the end would not have sufficed. If it turns out that some reasonably reputable publication did run these comments (including mention of exonoration) in 1964 where would that put us?
The media are not always kind to those whom they perceive to be guilty. A dramatic takedown and arrest is good for the TV ratings. The meticulous evidence that exculpates someone has the show stopping impact of drying paint. (Now that golf is popular on television, and even has its own channel, maybe times are changing. ;-) ) Unfortunately, even false rumours become part of the historical weave.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
New articles are certainly a good place to start. It's much more sensible than trying to fix five years of mistakes in a short time..
Ec
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
It may cause some different problems (like verifying the existence and reliability of mentioned sources, but requiring sources on new articles isn't at all unreasonable.
Mgm
On 12/2/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/1/05, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? Requiring a 'references' section for every article (thanking the heavens that WP is not paper), and reminding every editor that *every* new article should come with at least one reference, seems a responsible thing to do. Can you offer a reason not to have such a section for any article?
I meant that more than that is hard to automate. You're right that the bare minimals can be easily checked. However, I can't see that we can automate much beyond that with ease.
On en:, even that will help a *great* deal.
For the article in question it would have accomplished nothing. A malicious person could have added a totally fictious reference to the "Atlantic Monthly" for December 1964, and no-one would have been wiser. Marshall may have had easy access to that issue to verify the fact or not, but unless he had occasion to look at the Seigenthaler article it would never occur to him to check it out.
A precondition to fixing the article would be to read it critically in the first place. The spelling error could have been caught by a bot, and corrected by a person focused only on correcting spelling errors without needing to read the article.
The statement in the article was certainly offensive, but not likely libellous. It stated that there were claims that Seigenthaler was involved in the assassinations, and that those claims were shown to be wrong. It did not say that he was in fact involved. Early claims about the Oklahoma City bombing were that it was the work of terrorists from the Middle East. The simple fact that such claims were being made is a credible one, just as much as the comment that they were soon shown to be false.
What needed checking and referencing was the specific claim about his involvement in the assassinations. A bibliographic note at the end would not have sufficed. If it turns out that some reasonably reputable publication did run these comments (including mention of exonoration) in 1964 where would that put us?
The media are not always kind to those whom they perceive to be guilty. A dramatic takedown and arrest is good for the TV ratings. The meticulous evidence that exculpates someone has the show stopping impact of drying paint. (Now that golf is popular on television, and even has its own channel, maybe times are changing. ;-) ) Unfortunately, even false rumours become part of the historical weave.