[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 9/20/2010 12:41:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
peter.damian at btinternet.com writes:


> > I can read a book on the History of the Fourth Crusade, and adds quotes 
> to
> > our articles on the persons and events, just as well as an expert in 
> that
> > specific field.
> 
> If this 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_of_Hungary&
> oldid=383882577 
> is anything to go by, the answer is, no you can't. Sorry :(


What's the point of this sort of sniping?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_of_Hungary&diff=prev&
oldid=383882577
I really don't see to what you're referring.  This diff only shows the 
addition of her third marriage, and one short sentence about "Boetia".  If 
you're claiming you want a source for the third marriage, than tag it!  Otherwise 
I don't know what you're saying.

You can respond to me privately on this point, since I doubt the list cares 
about the intricate details of a rather obscure woman dead for 800 years.


Personally I think Nathan Salmon is wrong.  Only in a single instance can I 
recall being frustrated at the insistence of citing every tiny fact in an 
article.  Rather, in my experience, some rather outrageous claims stand, and 
it's I who have had to come along and tag those claims, and then later 
remove them.  The problem, if we have a citation problem at all, is trying to 
teach general editors who sort of things are credible sources and what sort are 
not.  In general I mean, not in particular.

Salmon makes the mistake of stating something like "known to those who 
know".  Excuse me?  That's the very problem.  We are not here to provide extra 
details for experts to debate amongst themselves.  We are a general work.  We 
need to talk to the general population, in a language they understand, with 
citations that show the exact points we're making, at least when 
challenged.  That is how we show we are experts.  Not in our use of jargonized 
language and high-level sputterings, that few can get through.  For Salmon to 
declare that certain things "known to experts" cannot be challenged, is 
frankly... outrageous.  And highlights my point, that those sort of experts, the ones 
who can't be cajoled into citing sources, and explaining points, simply do 
not belong in this project.

Will Johnson