--- Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella(a)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unpublished records is perfectly valid when there are no other alternatives.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