David Gerard wrote:
2008/9/11 Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net>et>:
mboverload wrote:
> I messed the last section up: A lazy
reporter cites something from
> Wikipedia that is not cited (and maybe not true). The lazy reporter
> then reports on it in a reliable source. Then that reliable source
> gets cited in the article to back up that "fact".
>
A reliable source doing that is not reliable
anymore, i.e. this source
is not suitable as a reference for Wikipedia.
There are no reliable sources in that sense. All sources have less
than 100% reliability because they're written by fallible humans.
Reference loops happen every now and then on en:wp. It's usually
faintly embarrassing to all involved and a note goes on the talk page.
It's not that big a deal in the wider scheme of things as long as
someone catches it. As lazy journalists who quote Wikipedia without
naming it get caught out, less lazy journalists learn to name it and
keep it to casual stuff, so the problem should stay generally
manageable.
Here is a very recent (((and simply brilliant))) article by the
inimitable Bruce Sterling, which talks about not just facts
but even the language, and the meaning of words
in the language, behind them - and yes, Wikipedia gets
more than a nod in the intro, with Bruce being remarkably
gentle with us...
http://blog.wired.com/sterling/2008/09/web-semantics-w.html
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen