At 03:16 AM 1/24/04 -0600, Ira Stoll wrote:

That's exactly what I'm getting at. The wikipedia should be packed with clickable citations.

In some cases, the useful citations aren't to online material--making them clickable would entice people to, say, the chance to buy a book, rather than actually providing more information.

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

People who ignore the NPOV policy aren't going to stop because there's a citation. Conversely, the presence of a citation doesn't stop a statement from *being* strongly POV.

Ira Stoll wrote:

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

Citations are similar in importance to footnotes in a term paper. I don't see linkability as important, since many or probably most) credible works are not al all available on line. Ultimately the burden of proof for any assertion falls upon the one making the assertion. The debating club analogy doesn't work because in the heat of an oral debate the reference sources are just not there in front of the debater. The standard for written material should be much higher when the person has that longer time and opportunity to check his sources.

There is a 'prima facie' presumtion that what someone says is valid; that persists until someone questions it. Beyond that, simply being "logical" is not enough, although people sometimes use that word when they really mean intuitive. One can challenge by pointing out a fallacy in the argument. At other times it is enough to simply ask, "Where did you get that?" The original contributor should have a reasonable chance to respond before further action is taken, but that's difficult when the user is an anonymous ip.

Truth by majority vote is frequently not truth at all. It is a very dangerous practice. Those votes often are based on fallacious arguments totally lacking in intellectual rigour. The last time I looked at [[astrology]] there was a statement there to the effect that most astronomers believe that astrology is pseudoscience. The word "believe" there says something, but even when we use a less charged word like "consider" we are no further ahead. Whatever you may think about astrology it is clear that it different from astronomy, and what is more likely is that most astronomers have never studied astrology to a sufficient extent to be able to come up with any kind of informed opinion. People with informed opinions may still come to the same conclusion, but they owe it to us to let us know how well they are informed.

I find it interesting to look at records of 19th century patents. Most of them got nowhere by failing to produce anything of practical importance, but they represented new ideas. Others were understated and their true importance would not become apparent until long after the patent expired, such as the 1842 patent on airfoils.

Ec