[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[geni]

On 4 October 2010 19:31, Henning Schlottmann <h.schlottmann at gmx.net> wrote:
> On 03.10.2010 17:03, geni wrote:
>
>> So I can run a 30 second search on the british library catalogue than
>> go back to doing what I was going to do all along. Great use of my
>> time.
>
> Wikipedia is about people with knowledge collaborating to add their part
> to the project. This way Wikipedia is trying to become a repository of
> the sum of all knowledge. So only those who have verifiable knowledge
> about a subject should become authors and write about that subject.
> Those who do not have knowledge should restrict themselves to editorial
> tasks such as copy editing, the category tree, vandal fighting or whatever.
>
> Our usual terms are not really helpful for understanding the difference.
> Maybe we should stop calling authors editors and distinguish between
> those edits that add content and those that process preexisting content.
>
> The point is verifiable knowledge. Unless you have respectable sources,
> do not become an author. We don't care if you use google books, your
> local library, a large research library, your own bookshelf, respectable
> websites, scientific or government databases, the online edition of
> respected newspapers, whatever.
>
> But those who don't have verifiable knowledge, should not write for
> Wikipedia. Their contribution is at best useless, at worse they use up
> time and energy of those who could make better use of their time and
> energy by writing content.

Can I suggest you stick to trying this argument on new users?

The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built
on  verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have
in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more
controversial areas came later. Don't believe me? This was a featured
article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_James_Bulger&oldid=3191413

-- 
geni