On 8/10/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
- Sources for articles on topics pertaining to the Sinosphere (for example)
are much harder to find than sources for articles on topics pertaining to the Anglosphere.
As someone who is a part of a culture which is not so good covered on Internet (Serbian), I think that I am completely relevant to talk about this issue.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Yes, it is much more then just an encyclopedia, but it is primary encyclopedia.
* Encyclopedia follows scientific method, not religious, not political. *
One of the basic principles of science is to say that it may describe something and that it is not possible to describe something else. *Not possible* may mean that it is not possible to do it temporary, but it also may mean that it is not possible to do at all.
It is completely according to the scientific method not to describe something if it is not possible and it is completely *against* scientific method to describe something without relevant background.
This implies a couple of things:
- One scientific project shouldn't add anything without relevant background. (In the case of encyclopedia, it means without references.)
- Users from small culture and/or not so well presented cultures on the Internet should be encouraged to make their culture's sources accessible.
- All Wikipedias will be affected by systematic bias at the beginning and if we are working well systematic bias will be lesser as time is passing.
* Sources are the root layer of any encyclopedia. *
Encyclopedia doesn't "think", it cites what do other think. There are no such things like "well known truths" for encyclopedia.
Unsourced sentences like "Queen Victoria was born in London" (well known truth for one person from Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere) leads to sentences like "Leo Tolstoy was born in Yasnaya Polyana" (not so well known truth for a person from Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere) and "Josib Broz was born in Kumrovec" (not well known truth for a person from Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere). (I may make an elaborate that we are making general encyclopedia in 200 language editions, not encyclopedias of particular cultures in their languages; I may also elaborate about examples which I chose ... Plus, it is completely unscientific to say that something is "well known" and something is not except you have a very complex research about what are "well known truths" in different parts of the world.)
So, the only valid method is to have sources for all of them. And we have to fight against systematic bias, but we shouldn't make Wikipedia unscientific in such fight.
- Sources for articles on non-academic topics (that mainstream
encyclopedias are unlikely to cover) should not be held to the same standards of reliability as sources for articles on academic topics (such as science and maths).
I think that we need one method for all sources. If it is needed to go down because of non-academic topics, then it should. However, it seems that I am not so introduced in differences in approaches. May you give some example?