[Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

[Tim Starling]

On 14/02/12 02:39, Achal Prabhala wrote:
>  The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia
> 
> By Timothy Messer-Kruse
> 
[...]
> My improvement lasted five minutes before a Wiki-cop scolded me, "I
> hope you will familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's policies,
> such as verifiability and undue weight. If all historians save one say
> that the sky was green in 1888, our policies require that we write
> 'Most historians write that the sky was green, but one says the sky
> was blue.' ... As individual editors, we're not in the business of
> weighing claims, just reporting what reliable sources write."

There are lots of places on Wikipedia where misconceptions have been
summarily dealt with, respectable sources criticised and facts brought
to light. Unfortunately, most academics don't have time for the edit
wars, lengthy talk page discussions and RFCs that are sometimes
required to overcome inertia.

The text of Messer-Kruse's article doesn't show much understanding of
this aspect of Wikipedia. But publishing it could be seen as canny. It
should be effective at recruiting new editors and bringing more
attention to the primary sources in question. The article is being
actively edited along those lines.

-- Tim Starling