--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
When you start *requiring *references, you will move
from one side of
the spectrum to the other end of the spectrum.
Encyclopedias are secondary sources, thus they require primary and other secondary sources
for
their information. If the person adding the content used, as they should have, another
source for
their information, then asking them to add that piece of meta-data is not much to ask for.
It is
in fact good academic practice that should be encouraged.
Saying that that moves us from what we are to something like Nupedia, is, well, completely
absurd.
Nupedia pretty much required article authors to have PhDs in the area they were writing
for. On
top of that was a 7 step very rigorous peer and copyedit review process. How in the
*world* does
requiring references make us like that?
Having a blind belief in
references is as bad as not referencing at all.
Evaluating references is also very important, yes. Nobody here is advocating a blind
belief in
anything.
Your ideas about Wikipedia are about the English
Wikipedia. This is the Foundation mailing list and as a consequence I
take it that you want to have references on all Wikipedia projects.
See my other email. This requirement would only apply to larger Wikipedias going forward
and would
be decided by each wiki's community anyway.
When we are so famous, why is it that maybe 3% of the
Italians know
Wikipedia ..
And it is OK for the other 97% of Italians to first hear about Wikipedia while reading a
very
negative review of it?
I am sorry but in my opinion this whole thing is too
inward looking. You
do not appreciate the potential fallout of all this.
And fallout from hosing libelous and inaccurate content is OK?
Adding references is not a panacea. But it is a very important part of checking the
accuracy of
content.
-- mav
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs