On 10/10/06, Jonathan Leybovich wrote:
Kpjas wrote:
Hi,
I've followed closely the thread about verifying content and citing
(book) sources.
My comment would be that obviously not all (book) sources that have
even been proven to exist are credible and reputable.
As I am a believer in "Work through WikiProjects" motto I think
WikiProjects could prepare lists of reputable printed sources in
different fields and eventually (dis)qualify a given source.
In my opinion we need more WikiProjects that are vivacious and full of
"experts". All dubious Wikipedia content should be directed towards
WikiProjects for verification.
This brings up an important issue- that of source criticism. A
nominally accurate citation is still not worth much if the underlying
source is not authoritative in the field. This can be measured, though,
by starting to map the authority relationships within a literature,
capturing not only how many citations are made of a particular work, but
also what TYPE:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTextrose#Citation_Analysis
For example, a work that is cited dozens of times is not necessarily
more authoritative than one that is cited less frequently if more than
half of those citations are negative and attack its claims. Building
such a database would allow non-experts to quickly orient themselves to
what is state-of-the-literature and act without the oversight of
WikiProject experts (not to mention create a resource that, in time,
could be very useful in its own right).
Very interesting ideas. But how to make them doable ? It'll require a
significant effort and determination.
Not that such WikiProjects
could not be useful as well, only that they are inherently non-scalable,
and certainly more inegalitarian in their effect than I think is
necessary- elevating certain users to the role of oracle rather than mentor.
I believe our experts that have been in the project for a long time
had somehow to come to terms with getting along with regular users.
They know to to take part in a WikiProject in a sensible way - showing
and arguing their arguments with scientific expertise and not
preaching ex cathedra.
I think that openness is a feature that is of fundamental importance
for Wikipedia and a vital part of the success. There's a place for
everyone who wants to cooperate with others in a civil and
constructive way. Only that experts and academics who want to join in
have usually hard time establishing themselves in the project.
I was wondering how WikiProjects could remain egalitarian and operate
in a wiki-way and at the same time work out ways to embrace "our"
experts and try to reach out to external experts as well.
Regards,
Kpjas.
--
http://kpjas.p5.org.uk/ http://kpjas.blogsome.com/
Wikipedia - World's Greatest
http://www.wikipedia.org