[Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

[Theo10011]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Andreas K. <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I never assumed that, and it is not consistent with basic Wikipedia
> policies
> that have existed for almost as long as Wikipedia has existed. Wikipedia is
> based on professionally published sources. They are privileged as the most
> (or for practical purposes almost only) reliable sources on which to base
> Wikipedia content.
>
> Wikipedia is set up to reflect and summarise these sources, not to provide
> an alternative worldview. We do not allow unsourced statements, or
> self-published sources (except in well-circumscribed exceptional cases).
>
>
I never said Wikipedia provides an alternative worldview. Let me quote
myself "amateur alternative to the professionals", as in an encyclopedia
written by amateurs, non-academicians, the general public, or just about
anyone, as opposed to a straight-forward publication written by
professionals, as in only scholars, intellectuals, academician.

Please stop re-stating general Wikipedia policies and ideologies. Most of us
here are editors, and well aware of how the content came to be. Your
constant use of 'We' includes most of us, repeating 'We' as if you are
explaining things to an outsider seems slightly condescending, just in case
it is intentional.


>
> Wikipedians of any age group subscribe to the principle of reliable
> sourcing. And reliable sources can be written and published by (almost) any
> age group.
>
>
My thoughts exactly, but then again, I wasn't the one who brought up the
demographic and said it's time for Wikipedia to grow up. As long as anyone
satisfies the principle of reliable sourcing, I have no objection whatever
demographic they belong to and neither should anyone else, even if it
seems homogeneous.

Regards
Theo