But it does have authoritative perspective. That is exactly my point and the point at which you railed at, from a position that was extreme. Your contention is that we should not report *any* thing in our work on a drug except what the manufacturer puts on the label.

On 23/10/2010 22:00, Wjhonson wrote: If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a calculator that every once in a while, and quite randomly, adds up two numbers wrongly, such a calculator wouldn't be authoritative in its results, even when it added the numbers correctly. For some things, like who played who in 'West Wing', it is of little importance. For medical issues the accuracy is highly important, and if one can't guarantee that each page load contains the accurate information then one shouldn't be pretending that it is in any way authoritative.

On 10/23/2010 03:42 PM, wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: I would hope that somebody from NASA trying to plot spaceship trajectories around the Solar System isn't going to be using data from Wikipedia for those calculations either... or an engineer doing some structural load calculations using information about material strengths from a Wikipedia article. I don't see medical issues as being anything of a unique case or something that needs to be especially pointed out other than it is foolish to use information from Wikipedia or for that matter any encyclopedia as "authoritative" without at the very least checking the sources used to obtain that information. Wikipedia isn't a replacement for the CRC Handbook, nor the Physician's Desk Reference. It shouldn't be either although both are excellent sources of information for factual data that can be used in a Wikipedia article.

Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?

Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The information contained on the page could well be nonsense".

That would be the logo at the side, then.

Really, Wikipedia can't be expected to think for those who can't or won't.

On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The information contained on the page could well be nonsense".

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM,  <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote: A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia.

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair <adhair(a)gmail.com> wrote: How is that relevant?

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair <adhair(a)gmail.com> wrote: A higher degree of reliability is implied than is provided.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that encyclopedias are generally authoritative, though.

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Anthony<wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, ???? <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote: Even if you ignore the flaws in the Nature study and equate errors-per-article with reliability, it still found that Wikipedia contained more errors-per-article than Britannica.

No, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is not consistent with any rational definitions of "Wikipedia" and "encyclopedia".

On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: Unfortunately, you're running behind the English language.

http://twitter.com/#!/alisonclement/status/8421314259

On 24 October 2010 21:07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: No you have explained that you have decided to draw a line in the sand in terms of reliability to define what is and isn't an encyclopedia.

None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer. There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies.  I'd definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the traditional encyclopedias.

No, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is not consistent with any rational definitions of "Wikipedia" and "encyclopedia".  "Wikipedia" cannot be "an encyclopedia", because it isn't "a work". Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an encyclopedia.

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: No.  It's more about accountability than about authority.

No, that wasn't my claim.  I am, however, accountable for what I say. And the idea that Wikipedia could "turn out to be an encyclopedia" is silly.  It either is, or it isn't, and in this case, as I have explained, it isn't.

On 24 October 2010 19:59, Anthony<wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: Remember though Britannica is meant to be the best of the best in terms of encyclopedias .

So unless you are going to define "encyclopedia" as "Encyclopedia Britannica" you have to accept that works with lower levels of reliability qualify as encyclopedias.

On 24 October 2010 20:58, ????<wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote: And how does that differ from every other document written by human beings ever? You've just defined the New Columbia Encyclopedia as not an encyclopedia (see http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829ta_talk_alford ). And then well consider this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine#Length

On 24 October 2010 23:40, ????<wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote: It's entirely unclear what it is you're actually expecting to achieve in participating in discussion here, either in particular or in general. Could you please detail what you want to achieve and what you actually expect to?

General agree. I do back of the envelope spacecraft mission planning with Wikipedia sources when on the road and away from my professional tools, and back of the envelope structural design with Wikipedia materials properties when similarly away from professional sources, but I know what I'm getting there and always go look up proper values if the BOTE work proceeds anywhere. In some cases, I put the structural and astrodynamics data into Wikipedia in the first place, looking at the CRC, astronomical handbooks, and engineering data from manufacturers. The risk here is that amateurs don't do spacecraft navigation or structural design much. They do - as a rule - take mediations and have medical conditions. In that sense, Wikipedia medical information is much more of an "attractive nuisance" to the uninformed...

On 24/10/2010 08:55, SlimVirgin wrote: Yet both these sources can be sensational. The science reporting is abysmal at times. When they have a science scare I have to turn the BBC radio4 news off because of the crap reporting. If any one is in the UK they'll know exactly what I'm taling about.

For six months this nonsense in Cervical cancer lasted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&diff=133707538&am… the article simply lent itself to extreme POV pushing.

On 24 October 2010 12:40, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: The specific case raised here, the BBC is, sadly, not a high quality source for science reporting, being notoriously even worse than the typical run of the media. (Wonder if I could cite Ben Goldacre on that.) Though their recent move to linking to original sources may help.

--- On Sun, 24/10/10, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: It swings both ways, doesn't it. Present consensus is that the MMR vaccine/autism controversy was without merit; by giving it undue weight, we may have discouraged parents from having their children vaccinated, and may have contributed to multiple deaths. Measles outbreaks had practically disappeared; now they're back. Our first basic job in writing an encyclopedia is to reflect the scholarly literature that exists on a topic. That is how encyclopedias are written. A Wikipedia article shouldn't look like a press review if there is a significant amount of scholarly literature on a topic. Having said that, we should also note, in a disinterested tone, the existence of any notable controversies in the public consciousness, making clear who says what, and on what basis. The high-end media will be indispensable for that. A few weeks ago, I proposed updating en:WP's verifiability policy with the following wording: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses, are usually the most reliable sources in topic areas where they are available. Non-academic sources may be used as well, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. This includes books by reputable publishers as well as newspapers, magazines, journals and electronic media. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In topics which are the subject of scholarly research, the most authoritative sources are academic works that have undergone scrutiny by a community of experts in that field. Quality mainstream media are equally valuable sources for areas such as current affairs – including the socio-economic, political, and human impact of science – or biographies of living persons. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing scientific findings, evidence, facts, and legal aspects; the greater the scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- That wording has attracted a significant amount of support, but SlimVirgin fears it will further move the balance towards improperly excluding media sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Proposal_5_compar… It's not an easy thing to get right; the discussion on the WP:V talk page (which also includes a variety of alternative proposals) could benefit from wider input. Andreas _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The whole point of NPOV and V is that we choose sources the world regards as reliable, and we run with them, presenting all sides of the debate even if we personally dislike some of it.