Ridicule? No. I am simply disappointed that you can even make such a statement. It shows me that we have very radically different ideas about what an encyclopedia is. Providing correct information is not something I am willing to compromise. I had hoped that this sentiment was shared by all of Wikipedia's editors and contributors.
Danny
In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:46:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
Hoi, Why, you ridicule what I have said and I give a deserving answer. You replied to a lengthy reply, I gave plenty of arguments. And this is all you take out of it? You do not go into the arguments that were given.
From my perspective in your previous post you had nothing to say.
Thanks, GerardM
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
If that is the attitude, then I really have nothing more to say here.
Danny
In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:34:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
Hoi, Yes it is. Other sources can be wrong as well and as I mentioned before you would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Thanks, GerardM
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Is it too much to ask that contributions to Wikipedia be correct? That
is
news to me.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Ridicule? No. I am simply disappointed that you can even make such a statement. It shows me that we have very radically different ideas about what an encyclopedia is. Providing correct information is not something I am willing to compromise. I had hoped that this sentiment was shared by all of Wikipedia's editors and contributors.
Danny
Yes this sentiment is shared Danny. But it is like Sabine said. In many cases you just know things. You simply forgot where you heard them. Also many things are sourced only in languages other than english. I have already seen an article on en.wikipedia deletion list which was put on there because it was not considered to have had a source. Its source was a German text which was linked! And a Dutch wikipedia article. This wasn't considered enough because it was not English. So if I put up a Thai source in Thai would it be accepted as sourced?
Some things are just common knowledge. I would much rather see a wikipedia editor, especially a trusted one as a source in some cases.
Walter/Waerth
Walter van Kalken wrote:
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Ridicule? No. I am simply disappointed that you can even make such a statement. It shows me that we have very radically different ideas about what an encyclopedia is. Providing correct information is not something I am willing to compromise. I had hoped that this sentiment was shared by all of Wikipedia's editors and contributors. Danny
Yes this sentiment is shared Danny. But it is like Sabine said. In many cases you just know things. You simply forgot where you heard them. Also many things are sourced only in languages other than english. I have already seen an article on en.wikipedia deletion list which was put on there because it was not considered to have had a source. Its source was a German text which was linked! And a Dutch wikipedia article. This wasn't considered enough because it was not English. So if I put up a Thai source in Thai would it be accepted as sourced?
Some things are just common knowledge. I would much rather see a wikipedia editor, especially a trusted one as a source in some cases.
Just because you have identified possible exceptions to the rule doesn't mean the whole thing should be thrown out. There are always exceptions which are more difficult to work with. The fact that some sources aren't in English doesn't mean all sources should be thrown out.
Brian wrote:
Walter van Kalken wrote:
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Ridicule? No. I am simply disappointed that you can even make such a statement. It shows me that we have very radically different ideas about what an encyclopedia is. Providing correct information is not something I am willing to compromise. I had hoped that this sentiment was shared by all of Wikipedia's editors and contributors. Danny
Yes this sentiment is shared Danny. But it is like Sabine said. In many cases you just know things. You simply forgot where you heard them. Also many things are sourced only in languages other than english. I have already seen an article on en.wikipedia deletion list which was put on there because it was not considered to have had a source. Its source was a German text which was linked! And a Dutch wikipedia article. This wasn't considered enough because it was not English. So if I put up a Thai source in Thai would it be accepted as sourced?
Some things are just common knowledge. I would much rather see a wikipedia editor, especially a trusted one as a source in some cases.
Just because you have identified possible exceptions to the rule doesn't mean the whole thing should be thrown out. There are always exceptions which are more difficult to work with. The fact that some sources aren't in English doesn't mean all sources should be thrown out.
What language a source is in shouldn't matter at all. If you absolutely need one in English then add it rather than treating a foreign language source as inferior.
Ec
I don't see that as what Gerard's saying at all. We absolutely do need to improve the quality and accuracy of information, but not to the point that it becomes an obsession. Failing to provide sources can leave the accuracy of an article in doubt, but it does not imply that it is necessarily wrong. We need to develop a culture of accuracy based on the positive view that providing references makes an article better, and not the negative view that we need it because of the consequences of some kind of rule enforcement.
One can look at the wiki as some kind of multilevel mental Mandelbrot with different aspects being at different levels of development. The pattern repeats itself on individual articles, in broad areas, in sister and other language projects, and in the project as a whole. If over some time period 20% of articles will achieve proper referenced status you can't specify two out of any given ten will be happily improved. At the same time new stubs will be born somewhere else. It's all in the Zen of wiki growth.
Ec
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Ridicule? No. I am simply disappointed that you can even make such a statement. It shows me that we have very radically different ideas about what an encyclopedia is. Providing correct information is not something I am willing to compromise. I had hoped that this sentiment was shared by all of Wikipedia's editors and contributors.
Danny
In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:46:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
Hoi, Why, you ridicule what I have said and I give a deserving answer. You replied to a lengthy reply, I gave plenty of arguments. And this is all you take out of it? You do not go into the arguments that were given.
From my perspective in your previous post you had nothing to say.
Thanks, GerardM
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
If that is the attitude, then I really have nothing more to say here.
Danny
In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:34:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
Hoi, Yes it is. Other sources can be wrong as well and as I mentioned before you would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Thanks, GerardM
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Is it too much to ask that contributions to Wikipedia be correct? That is
news to me.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I don't see that as what Gerard's saying at all. We absolutely do need to improve the quality and accuracy of information, but not to the point that it becomes an obsession.
This "obsession" is exactly what is required of print encyclopedias. How are we an encyclopedia if we aren't held to the same standards?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org