Hi,
I can just provide my personal history here. I appear in the credits of several popular reference works as everything from contributor to assistant editor-in-chief (a horrible title, I might add, but then again, so was the book). I have worked on these books for Simon and Shuster, Facts on File, Macmillan (before it was gobbled up by Simon and Shuster), Reader's Digest, Henry Holt, and Continuum. In each book, the facts were checked as Brian describes. In fact, I remember one senior editor at Simon and Shuster boasting about how they would pay grad students a certain amount of money for every mistake they found. They were eager to find errors. I now have a manuscript of a book that I wrote for Marshall Cavendish sitting on my desk. Every sentence was numbered and checked. I have been asked to help source the material. I will be happy to provide the email exchange.
Mind you, I am not suggesting that we go to these extremes. I do think it is important, however, that people understand the lengths that publishers of reference works go to in order to ensure the quality of their products. Of course, some publishers are more meticulous than others. And despite all the efforts, mistakes always managed to slip in anyway.
I am not about to say that because they do it, so should we. On the other hand, I will state my personal belief that with 850,000 articles already in the English Wikipedia, we should pay even more attention to quality than usual.
Danny
In a message dated 12/4/2005 12:40:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, lars@aronsson.se writes:
You are right now arguing that it is necessary to source every fact, and then you are doing sweeping generalizations like this?! I'm not trusting your insight into the editorial principles of Encyclopaedia Britannica or indeed any other (printed) encyclopedia and thus I'm asking you to provide some sources.
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Hi,
I can just provide my personal history here. I appear in the credits of several popular reference works as everything from contributor to assistant editor-in-chief (a horrible title, I might add, but then again, so was the book). I have worked on these books for Simon and Shuster, Facts on File, Macmillan (before it was gobbled up by Simon and Shuster), Reader's Digest, Henry Holt, and Continuum. In each book, the facts were checked as Brian describes. In fact, I remember one senior editor at Simon and Shuster boasting about how they would pay grad students a certain amount of money for every mistake they found. They were eager to find errors. I now have a manuscript of a book that I wrote for Marshall Cavendish sitting on my desk. Every sentence was numbered and checked. I have been asked to help source the material. I will be happy to provide the email exchange.
I must add my similar experience there. I wrote several reports and studies for institutions and academic fora, I always have to add the maximum of elements to source it, and it's rarely enough.
I would enjoy using Wikipedia for my studies, but it's not possible as of today. I would love if it could evolve the right way.
On 12/4/05, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Hi,
I can just provide my personal history here. I appear in the credits of several popular reference works as everything from contributor to assistant editor-in-chief (a horrible title, I might add, but then again, so was the book). I have worked on these books for Simon and Shuster, Facts on File, Macmillan (before it was gobbled up by Simon and Shuster), Reader's Digest, Henry Holt, and Continuum. In each book, the facts were checked as Brian describes. In fact, I remember one senior editor at Simon and Shuster boasting about how they would pay grad students a certain amount of money for every mistake they found. They were eager to find errors. I now have a manuscript of a book that I wrote for Marshall Cavendish sitting on my desk. Every sentence was numbered and checked. I have been asked to help source the material. I will be happy to provide the email exchange.
Mind you, I am not suggesting that we go to these extremes. I do think it is important, however, that people understand the lengths that publishers of reference works go to in order to ensure the quality of their products. Of course, some publishers are more meticulous than others. And despite all the efforts, mistakes always managed to slip in anyway.
I am not about to say that because they do it, so should we. On the other hand, I will state my personal belief that with 850,000 articles already in the English Wikipedia, we should pay even more attention to quality than usual.
Danny
Is the normal process to number every sentence and then check them one by one? Who is normally in charge of matching the sentences to the sources, the author or the fact checker(s)? Are the sources documented, and if so in what way? Do multiple people fact check the same sentences?
Maybe we shouldn't do this, and even if we should there are probably more efficient ways to do it using a wiki, and there are other problems which would make our processes less efficient (it's gotta be harder to fact check a constantly changing work, especially one with such a multitude of different authors). But some more insight into *how* all of this fact checking is accomplished would be helpful.
Anthony
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org