I don't quite understand about why the response to people finding flaws with us is to find flaws with them. It seems rather puerile to me. Instead, we should try to find ways to overcome and correct our flaws.
Danny
On 12/8/05, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I don't quite understand about why the response to people finding flaws with us is to find flaws with them. It seems rather puerile to me. Instead, we should try to find ways to overcome and correct our flaws.
Danny
I don't understand why people are taking offense to this in the first place. In my opinion, *of course* the New York Times shouldn't be using Wikipedia to check information. Is someone here suggesting that they should? It seems to me like a ridiculous proposition in the first place.
Anthony
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthony DiPierro stated for the record:
I don't understand why people are taking offense to this in the first place. In my opinion, *of course* the New York Times shouldn't be using Wikipedia to check information. Is someone here suggesting that they should? It seems to me like a ridiculous proposition in the first place.
Anthony
So should anybody, anywhere, be using Wikipedia for any purpose?
If so, then why are the editors at the New York Times "of course" different from those that should?
- -- Sean Barrett | Damned shame about Scrooge -- a shrewd sean@epoptic.org | businessman before this lunacy. | I'm afraid he's for Bedlam now.
What about using more than one source - common sense surely?
Anyway sod the NYT - the Guardian leader loves us ;)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1661567,00.html
Caroline/Secretlondon
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sean Barrett Sent: 08 December 2005 14:51 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] NYT to forbid use of Wikipedia as a reference?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthony DiPierro stated for the record:
I don't understand why people are taking offense to this in the first place. In my opinion, *of course* the New York Times shouldn't be using Wikipedia to check information. Is someone here suggesting that they should? It seems to me like a ridiculous proposition in the first place.
Anthony
So should anybody, anywhere, be using Wikipedia for any purpose?
If so, then why are the editors at the New York Times "of course" different from those that should?
- -- Sean Barrett | Damned shame about Scrooge -- a shrewd sean@epoptic.org | businessman before this lunacy. | I'm afraid he's for Bedlam now.
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 07/12/2005
On 12/8/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthony DiPierro stated for the record:
I don't understand why people are taking offense to this in the first place. In my opinion, *of course* the New York Times shouldn't be using Wikipedia to check information. Is someone here suggesting that they should? It seems to me like a ridiculous proposition in the first place.
Anthony
So should anybody, anywhere, be using Wikipedia for any purpose?
Sure, but not for fact checking. For getting a broad overview, maybe. For pointing you to other sources, sure. But not for fact checking.
If so, then why are the editors at the New York Times "of course" different from those that should?
They're not different. No one should be using Wikipedia to check facts.
(I suppose if you go through the history and find the exact diff where the fact was added, and it turns out it was added by a Wikipedian who you personally trust, then you could make an exception. But in general, you shouldn't be assuming something is true simply because you read it on the Internet.)
Anthony
On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
So should anybody, anywhere, be using Wikipedia for any purpose?
Sure, but not for fact checking. For getting a broad overview, maybe. For pointing you to other sources, sure. But not for fact checking.
I think this is a very good point - WIkipedia can *provide* facts, but it definitely can't *verify* them, on it's own. After all, we reject original research, so we are only ever a secondary source, by policy.
Anyone who thinks they know something and reads Wikipedia to check it is going about things the wrong way round. They should be using Wikipedia either because they don't know the facts at all (and want a starting point), or because they want to see what brilliant authoritative sources Wikipedians have cited. ;)
[I guess that last use could be classed as "using it to check information", but more accurately it's using it as a tool to find resources which can be used to check the information.]
-- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP]
Sean Barrett wrote:
So should anybody, anywhere, be using Wikipedia for any purpose?
If so, then why are the editors at the New York Times "of course" different from those that should?
I use it to find facts, not to verify them. I've used many of our mathematical articles, for example, to get an overview of various areas, explanations of concepts I'm only vaguely familiar with, and so on. I have never used those articles, or articles in any other encyclopedia, to actually verify statements that any of my work depends on, though---my papers would get rejected pretty quickly if I started sourcing my facts to encyclopedias rather than to articles in peer-reviewed journals and conferences.
-Mark
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org