Robth wrote
Yes, yes, yes. Our articles need to come in with a
chip on their shoulders,
as it were. There is no external reason to believe that what it says resembles
the truth, no author or organization claiming responsibility for the text. The
article needs to make a case for the information it presents being
accurate. Don't
just state facts, show the reader how they can confirm the accuracy of the
statements. Trusting a Wikipedia article requres a leap of faith; we want to
minimize the distance of that leap.
Actually, I think an ultra-sceptical attitude is complete poison, when it comes to
learning anything you don't already know. It is actually rather symptomatic of adult
learners, that they have to know everything in full detail, before assenting to anything.
Insisting on reading the fine print is a good life lesson, but it is hopeless when it
comes to self-education.
I contrast what is above with the point made by [[Frank Adams]], about reading survey
articles: you should try first to get the general idea of what is going on.
I always think of WP articles as aspiring to be exactly that: good surveys. I hope it
doesn't signify too much that [[survey article]] is still a red link. In such
articles, anyway, it is assumed that there is a good biblography, but usually little
footnoting.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit
www.ntlworld.com/security for more information