[Foundation-l] Porchesia atonement

Birgitte SB birgitte_sb at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 3 14:20:22 UTC 2006

--- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 03/10/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > --- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The problem is how to come up with a sources
> > > criterion that can't be hoaxed.
> > > There's enough trouble with stupid AFD
> nominations
> > > on en:wp by people
> > > who couldn't find the subject on Google and
> presumed
> > > it therefore
> > > didn't exist.
> > > Will we forbid print sources unless a scan is
> lodged
> > > with the WMF?
> > Obviously not (Copyright?).  I think you are beind
> > sarcastic, but it is hard to be ceratain.
> It is somewhat reductio ad absurdum. But there are
> those on en: who
> seriously advocate that a reference can only be good
> if it's easy for
> a normal person (presumably in the US) to find.

This is crazy, but I witnessed articles being damaged
by having the easest source cited for every assertion.
 Even when this source does not exactly match.  I
believe part of this problem comes from FA.  People
seems to want to be able to bring an article up to FA
without visiting a library.  I would rather FA accept
articles without being so heavily cited, if they will
not make an effort judge the quality of the source.  I
think outside of controversial articles, no sources at
all, is better than misrepresented or low quality

> >  "How to
> > come up with a sources criterion that can't be
> hoaxed"
> > is only a the problem with the proposed solution
> of
> > requiring sources.  I think this is large enough
> > problem that requiring sources should be thrown
> out of
> > consideration for this particular problem.
> Coming up with a rigid rule that would catch this
> hoax without causing
> ridiculous quantities of collateral damage will not
> be easy.
> [[:en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] is marked
> "guideline" but phrased
> didactically, so when applied robotically - and
> people do apply it
> robotically - is disastrous in practice, gutting
> articles and causing
> the sort of PR disasters over living bios it was
> written didactically
> so as to avert.
I think this is true of most rules and a good reason
to *avoid* coming up with a rigid rule to catch
hoaxes.  They key is to find them quickly.  I think
en.WP generally does a good job of this.  I imagine
they patrol articles much more effectively than other
communities.  (Or else a ten-month old hoax would get
a more matter-of-fact recation)  I think the key is
finding a way to identify "high-risk" articles.  If we
could manage to ggenerate a list of month-old articles
sorted by least number of edits, and keep it low
profile.  It may be enought to do a second round of
"patrols" off such a list.  Although that doesn't help
with any currently existing hoaxes.

Birgitte SB

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the foundation-l mailing list