On 8/10/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One <hildanknight(a)gmail.com> wrote:
1. 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.
2. 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?