[Foundation-l] Enforcing WP:CITE the Soi case

[Delphine Ménard]

On 12/3/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>>Brian wrote:
> > Britannica has to defend every letter of it before they can get
> > published. The same is true for all other major encyclopedias. Why
> > wouldn't it be true for us? Aren't we trying to make an encyclopedia
> > here?

I'm jumping in the train. There is a limit to what can be sourced, and
what cannot. Not *every* word can be. But every fact *should* be
sourced, in an ideal world, yes. I agree.

>
> Wikipedia is based on mutual trust. I trust that you put valid info on
> there. I ask you for the same trust. Now asking me to go and dig up were
> the hell I learned some things in my 32 years on this planet is a bit to
> much. If I actually research something especially for wikipedia I put
> sources on there(which is most of my contributions) If I just happen to
> know something I do not. You just have to trust my statement. Wikipedia
> is based on trust! Now if you say you cannot trust me I have to put
> about a 1000 articles on nl: and about 20 or so on en: on votes for
> deletion.

Quoting you : "Wikipedia is based on trust"

Yes, and no.
Yes, there are certain editors I trust, as we do all, and others I
distrust. I will trust you on the Soi article, because *I* know you
live there. In that, in my eyes, *you* are a known source. But where I
trust you, there could (and should) be 20 editors who distrust you.
Not because of you, because in fact, they don't know you, but because
then they would go and look for opposing sources, or verifying sources
to support the facts you put in your articles. And I think that is
good.

No, Wikipedia *should* not be solely based on trust. I think we,
editors, are too often forgetting that *we* know to trust some people,
but that readers, who never ever get to hit the "history" button,
should not take us for granted,a nd that we should give them every
possible means to verify that what is stated in an article is indeed
verifiable.

 I remember when I did my first presentation of Wikipedia. The same
question that comes up all the time came up that time also. "If anyone
can edit, how can you trust". I was new to the whole thing, so I gave
what I thought was the best answer at the time "Well, if *you* find a
mistake, correct it, and there are xxx contributors who look at
articles and do rc patrolling, etc."

At that point a woman in the assistance got up and said "Well, I have
an answer to this. I believe that the fact that Wikipedia *can* be
distrusted is a good thing. In this world where so much information is
given to us with no background, no distanciation, the fact that
Wikipedia keeps people wondering is good, because it obliges them to
go and find other sources, to diversify their views on one subject".

That opened a whole different view on the projects to me.

Mind you, I am not saying that we *should* have mistakes in the
articles, on the contrary. But sourcing, which in my view is crucial,
as Danny,Sj and Michael pointed out, should not be seen as having for
sole role that of making Wikipedia look "better", (ie. we are right,
that guy said it) but as our due to the readers. See for yourself.

We are striving to write an encyclopedia, but by definition, we don't
have it all. You, reader,  can trust us, because we can direct you to
other sources where we got our information, but at the same time, you
should see for yourself, and here is how you can do it, follow the
link. And also, please, if you disagree, if we've got something wrong,
by all means, add your source, and their point of view.

Without sources, we pretend *we* are the source, and I believe that is
wrong. We should be *one source* not *the source*

Best,

Delphine
--
~notafish