And is being expert necessarily a bad thing? .
In a message dated 12/3/2005 3:14:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
And indeed, we would drive many people . I understand a wish for sources but by putting red boxes and what have you around what has not been sourced you make us into something what we are not. We would be as expert as what Larry Sanger wants in his new project.
Hoi, Being expert is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a bad thing when it makes you think that you are necessarily better. If you think that being expert is being superior, I think Larry is looking for experts for his project. If you think that being expert means that you can resolve problems amicably by finding sources to show some truth/worth in arguments, then I share the sentiment that it is not a bad thing. The proposals that I have seen so far are largely a reaction to some nasty business in a major American newspaper. When your argue for due diligence and showing sources particularly when it concerns living people, I am all for it. The current proposals are in my opinion an overreaction and if adopted will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Again, consider who we are, where we came from. Again consider that sources do not tell the whole truth but only a particular point of view. Using expertise and sources as a weapon it will not help us find a neutral point of view. It will certainly not find us the truth as in the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Thanks. GerardM
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
And is being expert necessarily a bad thing? .
In a message dated 12/3/2005 3:14:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
And indeed, we would drive many people . I understand a wish for sources but by putting red boxes and what have you around what has not been sourced you make us into something what we are not. We would be as expert as what Larry Sanger wants in his new project.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Really today I wanted to write about my presentation in Cracow, the feedback I got from "not Wikipedians" to the Wikimedia projects ... well and now I just read a long list of e-mails on how to make Wikipedia an encyclopaedia with "secure" information.
"Secure" information is a very POV thingie ... what is secure ... written by people I believe? Written by someone I don't know whose website or book is quoted? Hmmmm ... we already know that: all encyclopaedias include errors. All books can contain wrong information. Now when I presume that Mr Cancellor XYZ only because he is Mr. XYZ says the truth I quote him and therefore I am "regular". Then there is that person who read hundreds of books, websites, e-mails and whatsoever and just "knows" but does not really recall where all the information he/she has in the grey cells comes from, but knows that there are controversary points about a theme, knows that what Mr XYZ says is not 100% ok, but this is then considered as "insecure information" and therefore needs to be discarded ... well ... ehm ... sorry ...
Then again: since I had to explain the basics about Wikipedia during the conference I used two articles for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
Now what you are writing in all these mails (well those who are for "citing") gives very much the expression of Nupedia and not Wikipedia ... where is freedom gone? Then considering "Wikipedia" as it was wanted to be ... where is it going? Into some kind of dead-end place for only academics and researchers?
Hmmmm .........
Let's consider translators: we have our specific subjects, but also translate loads of general texts - this means when working we also learn ... well: we know loads of things, not only words ... so now a colleague wants to write about a subject he/she knows really well ... but who of us is able to recall where all the information we have in mind comes from? I don't. So only because we are not able to remeber every single source we read during our researches our information is less valid ... hmmmm .... well .... for me this would mean: we are not going to contribute anything since it does not make sense - it would be deleted ... or ... wait ... there is one thing that could be done ...
Take a dump of wikipedia, put it on a server and just go ahead editing ... great!!!! what an idea!!! Wikipedia showed how to do this in its beginnings ... well what Wikipedia did can be done by anyone ... we are talking about GFDL ...
Fine ... wonderful .... so just go ahead restricting contributors - go into your dead-end position and you will see that Wikipedia will follow Nupedia - and that someone considered a bit mad will just take over the contents and allow people to edit like it was done up to now.
Well ... now you say: but newspapers criticise us ... and here I tell you: whoever has success is being criticised - in the end: they are making a huge compliment to Wikipedia - it became so huge and important that it needs to be criticised ...
Come on: let them talk - let's just go ahead working without listening to them doing our best. The day is not far and they will need to stop because Wikipedia will show them that liberty and democracy survives any attack.
Hmmm .....
Well ... think well about what you are doing to your dearest project and don't repeat errors done in the past.
The Cracow-Conference follow up will come ... as soon as time permits.
***** I just read Danny's message: you understand it like this, some other people understand it like this, but what is going to come out is a huge mess since the "citing is necessary" thingie will be interpreted in a very wrong way ... try it out and you will see ... things like these arleady happen - not for citing but for other "requirements". *****
Have a great week-end!
Sabine
___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it
--- Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it wrote:
Fine ... wonderful .... so just go ahead restricting contributors - go into your dead-end position and you will see that Wikipedia will follow Nupedia - and that someone considered a bit mad will just take over the contents and allow people to edit like it was done up to now.
Requiring people to add references does not needlessly restrict them. It improves the content. We are here to serve a goal; create the world's largest and best free encyclopedia. Adding references helps us toward that goal.
Nupedia was on one end of the spectrum and Wikipedia is on the other. Nupedia died because it was too restrictive. Wikipedia needed to be very open in order to encourage growth. That was fine when we were small and hardly anybody knew of us or used our content. Now things have changed; millions of people use Wikipedia every month and expect it to be accurate. Requiring references helps us attain higher quality.
Come on: let them talk - let's just go ahead working without listening to them doing our best. The day is not far and they will need to stop because Wikipedia will show them that liberty and democracy survives any attack.
We are already famous, so bad press is simply bad (esp right before a fund drive). But beyond that, this particular incident showed a place where our review system failed and failed badly.
If we required references, then somebody from RC patrol would have tagged the the offending article as unsourced and subject to eventual deletion. That tells readers to not at all trust what is in that article and encourages editors to check the article and add references. I see nothing wrong with that.
Like it or not we are being used as a major reference source. Readers rely on us to be accurate. Adding references helps us do that.
-- mav
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it wrote:
Fine ... wonderful .... so just go ahead restricting contributors - go into your dead-end position and you will see that Wikipedia will follow Nupedia - and that someone considered a bit mad will just take over the contents and allow people to edit like it was done up to now.
Requiring people to add references does not needlessly restrict them. It improves the content. We are here to serve a goal; create the world's largest and best free encyclopedia. Adding references helps us toward that goal.
Nupedia was on one end of the spectrum and Wikipedia is on the other. Nupedia died because it was too restrictive. Wikipedia needed to be very open in order to encourage growth. That was fine when we were small and hardly anybody knew of us or used our content. Now things have changed; millions of people use Wikipedia every month and expect it to be accurate. Requiring references helps us attain higher quality.
When you start *requiring *references, you will move from one side of the spectrum to the other end of the spectrum. Having a blind belief in references is as bad as not referencing at all. The references you come up with are probably English and you cannot truly appreciate sources in other languages. 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. Again it is a sure way of killing off our less mature projects.
Come on: let them talk - let's just go ahead working without listening to them doing our best. The day is not far and they will need to stop because Wikipedia will show them that liberty and democracy survives any attack.
We are already famous, so bad press is simply bad (esp right before a fund drive). But beyond that, this particular incident showed a place where our review system failed and failed badly.
If we required references, then somebody from RC patrol would have tagged the the offending article as unsourced and subject to eventual deletion. That tells readers to not at all trust what is in that article and encourages editors to check the article and add references. I see nothing wrong with that.
Like it or not we are being used as a major reference source. Readers rely on us to be accurate. Adding references helps us do that.
-- mav
When we are so famous, why is it that maybe 3% of the Italians know Wikipedia .. Why do you think we have so few resources where we could make a difference.. We may be relevant in English but with a similar resource in Kannada, or Osetian we would be truly relevant. We would be relevant because we would define a genre.
I am sorry but in my opinion this whole thing is too inward looking. You do not appreciate the potential fallout of all this.
Thanks, GerardM<
--- Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@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
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?
Well ... if you let negative articles do the marketing ... I do not allow that ... I do talk to people about wikipedia, I print out articles, I pass them around, I show them where it is useful, I give articles to some of the kids that come to me get (printed) articles on the subject they are studying at school, they take it to their teachers, friends etc.
Anyone of us can do that - that is positive usage, positive marketing ... but if you believe newspapers who are only in search for scoops and whatever will help us to become known ... well ...
Do you know of a reporter who likes to write about positive news? These do not make scoop and do not make the reporter rich ... no ... so we are the ones who need to be be positive reporters.
The 97% of Italians need to hear from us about wikipedia and not from others ... and this is the way anywhere in the world.
We are the ones in charge - not newspapers, TV or whatever.
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?
Well if you mean that any content without reference is inaccurate you can already delete 97% of the articles that are around ... sorry ... and this is like saying: people who contribute are inaccurate contributors.
I'd say 99% of all contributors do their best - with or without "adding references".
Adding references is not a panacea. But it is a very important part of checking the accuracy of content.
Well: so who likes to check things can go and add references - but requiring it from anyone will have very negative results ... and this will mean that many of the people I was just getting on becoming interested in giving their expertise to Wikipedia will not be there ... months of work for nothing ... these people have years of expertise, loads of knowledge, but like me: it will be impossible for them to give sources since it is expertise that comes from many years of translation work in different fields. They all, if/when they start, will start with some kind of stub and need someone to take them by the hand ... the wiki "language" (tags etc.) are not for anyone and often prevent people from contributing.
Ciao, Sabine
___________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
--- Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it wrote:
Well: so who likes to check things can go and add references -
And how are the people who add references going to know what sources were used to add the content in the first place? I can't read the mind of others and I don't think many other people can do that either.
requiring it from anyone will have very negative results ... and this will mean that many of the people I was just getting on becoming interested in giving their expertise to Wikipedia will not be there ... months of work for nothing ...
I assume you want them to work on the Italian Wikipedia, no? Any referencing requirement would be decided on a per wiki basis and start with the very largest wikis. Other wikis may still need to encourage growth in any way they can. So adding such a requirement prematurely may do more harm than good.
And such a requirement would not prevent anybody from adding unsourced material. It would just allow people who like to tag things - and boy does at least the English Wikipedia have plenty of those folks - to tag those articles as needing sources. The tag would serve two roles: 1) Tell readers to treat the article very critically, 2) Tell editors that the article needs references (hopefully the original author will see that and add the referenes; if not, then others would need to check each fact). It would also help to encourage a culture of sourcing material that will only help us attain and retain more accurate content.
Again ; language versions at different stages of development need to follow different policies on this type of thing. The great majority of wikis will be better served by encouraging growth more than quality, but the ones that are already huge can afford to be a bit more picky. Once the other wikis get huge, then they could start to be more picky as well.
-- mav
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it wrote:
requiring it from anyone will have very negative results ... and this will mean that many of the people I was just getting on becoming interested in giving their expertise to Wikipedia will not be there ... months of work for nothing ...
Again ; language versions at different stages of development need to follow different policies on this type of thing. The great majority of wikis will be better served by encouraging growth more than quality, but the ones that are already huge can afford to be a bit more picky. Once the other wikis get huge, then they could start to be more picky as well.
I believe that sourcing should be the norm al all projects, but with each in its own time and way.
Mav's comments on this topic leave the impression that references do not matter for many of the rest of us. To the contrary, the one constant that has tied the people in this thread together is that they believe that references and citations are a good thing, and are trying to find a solution that will accomplish this. For some of us it is equally important that we not forget our roots, and that we not allow a blind obsession with references to obscure the positive features of the project.. Let's not be too quick to punish people for failing to add citations.
Ec
Daniel Mayer wrote:
And such a requirement would not prevent anybody from adding unsourced material. It would just allow people who like to tag things - and boy does at least the English Wikipedia have plenty of those folks - to tag those articles as needing sources. The tag would serve two roles:
- Tell readers to treat the article very critically,
Why does this need a tag? Cannot a read see for themselves whether or not an article has references? Or are we assuming our readers are idiots who accept everything uncritically unless explicitly told not to?
-Mark
Sabine Cretella wrote:
Well ... if you let negative articles do the marketing ... I do not allow that ... I do talk to people about wikipedia, I print out articles, I pass them around, I show them where it is useful, I give articles to some of the kids that come to me get (printed) articles on the subject they are studying at school, they take it to their teachers, friends etc.
Anyone of us can do that - that is positive usage, positive marketing
I would expect that all of us does do that.
... but if you believe newspapers who are only in search for scoops and whatever will help us to become known ... well ...
Do you know of a reporter who likes to write about positive news? These do not make scoop and do not make the reporter rich ... no ... so we are the ones who need to be be positive reporters.
They know about this in the land that invented the word "paparazzi".
Ec
Now things have changed; millions of people use Wikipedia every month and expect it to be accurate. Requiring references helps us attain higher quality.
not here ... up to now in a place with 6000 people not one knew Wikipedia - I am NOT kidding.
Come on: let them talk - let's just go ahead working without listening to them doing our best. The day is not far and they will need to stop because Wikipedia will show them that liberty and democracy survives any attack.
We are already famous
??? really??? only in a certain part of the world with certain users - the rest of the world does not even know what a wiki is - nor do they know what the foundation is.
And I am talking not only about the place where I live (Maiori, Italy) ... I gave a presentation on Wikipedia during a conference in Cracow and had to start at the very beginning - and found many highly instructed people asking what that wikipedia was that they find in Google every now and then on the first place when searching for contents.
, so bad press is simply bad (esp right before a fund drive). But beyond that, this particular incident showed a place where our review system failed and failed badly.
It is one case ... things have been corrected as soon as the error was seen ... well, where's the problem? The best answer to such an article would have been: well if you knew that it was wrong, and you know what Wikipedia is, why do you make such a huge problem out of this: simply correct things - you could have done this - so it is not us who are wrong, but the person who "did not correct" knowing how Wikipedia works and "officially" believes in equal chances and whatever ... use these critics in the right way - that's all.
If we required references, then somebody from RC patrol would have tagged the the offending article as unsourced and subject to eventual deletion. That tells readers to not at all trust what is in that article and encourages editors to check the article and add references. I see nothing wrong with that.
So now I write about the "Chiesa del Carmine" (Church of the Carmine) here in Maiori - where there is no official documentation - all I know is from what people of Maiori told me. It was the place where dead people after the floods in the 50's were collected ... the first person who told me this was my mother in law, then I asked some other old people of the town who confirmed - so this can be believed, but there is not one ressource that states that it is true. And since this cannot be proofed to be true with whatever reference it would be deleted. Well, great ... Wikipedia would have been the first place where to publish this information - like you request it, it would not be possible - so first of all I am required to create a book somewhere else ... but this would then make Wikipedia being not the unique reference for such information. What about that?
Like it or not we are being used as a major reference source. Readers rely on us to be accurate. Adding references helps us do that.
Well I like it being used, but it is not used enough - people don't know Wikipedia. Readers who rely on only one source are not good readers ... they are blind readers. And what if the references already contain that error? The reference of the reference?
Hmmm ....
Ciao, Sabine
___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it
--- Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it wrote:
not here ... up to now in a place with 6000 people not one knew Wikipedia - I am NOT kidding.
Wikipedia is a top 40 website and the number 1 reference website on the Internet. 13 million unique visitors used Wikipedia in September of this year. That does not at all include the many millions more people who use Wikipedia content from hundreds of mirrors. By any measure that makes Wikipedia famous.
It is one case ... things have been corrected as soon as the error was seen ... well, where's the problem?
The libelous statements remained uncorrected for 4 months and were spread to hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors. We not only failed to correct the error, but our license allowed it to be spread all over the Internet.
The best answer to such an article would have been: well if you knew that it was wrong, and you know what Wikipedia is, why do you make such a huge problem out of this: simply correct things - you could have done this - so it is not us who are wrong, but the person who "did not correct" knowing how Wikipedia works and "officially" believes in equal chances and whatever ... use these critics in the right way - that's all.
SoFixIt is no longer a valid retort for the larger language versions where readers outnumber editors by over 200 to 1 and the vast, vast, majority of people who use those Wikipedias will never edit. Again, a sourcing requirement would only be enacted by each wiki community when it thinks that it is needed. I think it is needed for at least the English Wikipedia.
So now I write about the "Chiesa del Carmine" (Church of the Carmine) here in Maiori - where there is no official documentation - all I know is from what people of Maiori told me.
That may or may not be original research. If it is, then it already is not allowed, if it is just observation or common knowledge in that village, then citing personal correspondence and unpublished records is perfectly valid when there are no other alternatives. In other words, if a phone call or visit could confirm the information, then that may in fact be a valid reference.
Readers who rely on only one source are not good readers ... they are blind readers.
I agree and find it odd at how indigent some people get when they find out that any source they use is wrong. But at the same time we do have a responsibility to make sure we try our best. Good referencing is a part of that. We also have to take the world as it is, not as we think it should be. The world is filled with lots of blind readers.
And what if the references already contain that error? The reference of the reference?
Each reference is going to have its own errors. That is why any article written should ideally have multiple references; common facts between them can be more trusted than facts that disagree. A good researcher needs to use good references, compare their facts, and find out the truth when the references disagree.
But none of that work can be done if there are no references to check.
-- mav
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
It is one case ... things have been corrected as soon as the error was seen ... well, where's the problem?
The libelous statements remained uncorrected for 4 months and were spread to hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors. We not only failed to correct the error, but our license allowed it to be spread all over the Internet.
That is not an interesting statement. If you were to claim "...and [x] people read that article", that would be more interesting. The fact that an obscure article had misinformation that was not corrected because virtually nobody ever read the article isn't particularly worrisome. If we were talking of [[en:Margaret Thatcher]], containing misinformation for 4 months that thousands of people read, I would be more worried.
-Mark
Sabine Cretella wrote:
It is one case ... things have been corrected as soon as the error was seen ... well, where's the problem? The best answer to such an article would have been: well if you knew that it was wrong, and you know what Wikipedia is, why do you make such a huge problem out of this: simply correct things - you could have done this - so it is not us who are wrong, but the person who "did not correct" knowing how Wikipedia works and "officially" believes in equal chances and whatever ... use these critics in the right way - that's all.
The individual in question was not particularly notable. It's not surprising that no-one noticed the problems with the article. The story is plausible, but who are the people who would read about this guy?
Like it or not we are being used as a major reference source. Readers rely on us to be accurate. Adding references helps us do that.
Well I like it being used, but it is not used enough - people don't know Wikipedia. Readers who rely on only one source are not good readers ... they are blind readers. And what if the references already contain that error? The reference of the reference?
To some extent readers have to take responsibility for what they read. They are not responsible for what is wrong in an article, but they are responsible for how it affects what they do in their own lives. Critical thinking is more important now than ever. When the people who fail to read critically are in positions of power they can end up starting wars in distant places.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org