[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk
Sun Oct 3 11:41:40 UTC 2010

On 03/10/2010 07:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Дана Saturday 02 October 2010 23:51:22 David Gerard написа:
>> On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard<dgerard at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> The problem is how to avoid making rules against stupidity. Because
>>> you can't actually outlaw stupid. Experts already complain about
>>> uncitability. I suppose we could advise experts on how to use citation
>>> as a debating tactic.
>> "Experts complain about uncitability" - they complain that common
>> knowledge in the field doesn't actually make it into journal articles
>> or textbooks, but is stuff that everyone knows.
> Perhaps what is needed then is a procedure for experts to cite such common
> knowledge in the field. I don't have a good idea on how exactly to do that
> however.

The main problem is that citations are overwhelmingly needed in 
wikipedia precisely because there is no control over the content, and 
any old crap can get added:


most of the above has been removed, but the first part remains "The 
French even went as far as to leave behind the pavises". They didn't 
'leave them behind' the pavises were on the road from Abbeville along 
with the rest of the straggling French Army.

later this bit of tosh got added:


which eventually gets removed by:


However, now the sense of what Philip wanted is reversed. So which is 
correct; was Philip in favour of attacking or not? Jonathan Sumption 
says in the first part of his three part History that the seasoned 
veterans wanted to wait, but that others wanted to attack. That Philip 
sided with the opinion to attack as he could not afford the humiliation, 
of having a powerful army in sight of an English army, for a third time, 
and not engaging in battle.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list