[Foundation-l] Ensuring veracity of articles based on print sources

[Kpjas]

On 10/10/06, Jonathan Leybovich wrote:
> Kpjas wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've followed closely the thread about verifying content and citing
> > (book) sources.
> >
> > My comment would be that obviously not all (book) sources that have
> > even been proven to exist are credible and reputable.
> >
> > As I am a believer in "Work through WikiProjects" motto I think
> > WikiProjects could prepare lists of reputable printed sources in
> > different fields and eventually (dis)qualify a given source.
> >
> > In my opinion we need more WikiProjects that are vivacious and full of
> > "experts". All dubious Wikipedia content should be directed towards
> > WikiProjects for verification.
> >
> >
>
> This brings up an important issue- that of source criticism.  A
> nominally accurate citation is still not worth much if the underlying
> source is not authoritative in the field.  This can be measured, though,
> by starting to map the authority relationships within a literature,
> capturing not only how many citations are made of a particular work, but
> also what TYPE:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTextrose#Citation_Analysis
>
> For example, a work that is cited dozens of times is not necessarily
> more authoritative than one that is cited less frequently if more than
> half of those citations are negative and attack its claims.  Building
> such a database would allow non-experts to quickly orient themselves to
> what is state-of-the-literature and act without the oversight of
> WikiProject experts (not to mention create a resource that, in time,
> could be very useful in its own right).

Very interesting ideas. But how to make them doable ? It'll require a
significant effort and determination.

> Not that such WikiProjects
> could not be useful as well, only that they are inherently non-scalable,
> and certainly more inegalitarian in their effect than I think is
> necessary- elevating certain users to the role of oracle rather than mentor.

I believe our experts that have been in the project for a long time
had somehow to come to terms with getting along with regular users.
They know to to take part in a WikiProject in a sensible way - showing
and arguing their arguments with scientific expertise and not
preaching ex cathedra.

I think that openness is a feature that is of fundamental importance
for Wikipedia and a vital part of the success. There's a place for
everyone who wants to cooperate with others in a civil and
constructive way. Only that experts and academics who want to join in
have usually hard time establishing themselves  in the project.
I was wondering how WikiProjects could remain egalitarian and operate
in a wiki-way and at the same time work out ways to embrace "our"
experts and try to reach out to external experts as well.

Regards,
Kpjas.

-- 
http://kpjas.p5.org.uk/ http://kpjas.blogsome.com/
Wikipedia - World's Greatest http://www.wikipedia.org