[Foundation-l] Wikiquote: to be, or not to be

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/9/11 Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net>:
>   
>> mboverload wrote:
>>     
>
>   
>>> I messed the last section up:  A lazy reporter cites something from
>>> Wikipedia that is not cited (and maybe not true).  The lazy reporter
>>> then reports on it in a reliable source.  Then that reliable source
>>> gets cited in the article to back up that "fact".
>>>       
>
>   
>> A reliable source doing that is not reliable anymore, i.e. this source
>> is not suitable as a reference for Wikipedia.
>>     
>
>
> There are no reliable sources in that sense. All sources have less
> than 100% reliability because they're written by fallible humans.
>
> Reference loops happen every now and then on en:wp. It's usually
> faintly embarrassing to all involved and a note goes on the talk page.
> It's not that big a deal in the wider scheme of things as long as
> someone catches it. As lazy journalists who quote Wikipedia without
> naming it get caught out, less lazy journalists learn to name it and
> keep it to casual stuff, so the problem should stay generally
> manageable.
>
>
>   

Here is a very recent (((and simply brilliant))) article by the
inimitable Bruce Sterling, which talks about not just facts
but even the language, and the meaning of  words
in the language, behind them - and yes, Wikipedia gets
more than a nod in the intro, with Bruce being remarkably
gentle with us...

http://blog.wired.com/sterling/2008/09/web-semantics-w.html


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen