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

[Sarah]

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jussi-ville writes:
>
>>> The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding
>>> information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view. ...
>>
>
> I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a
> must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn
> what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original
> Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years
> until the article was actually published before trying to modify the
> Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case
> because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for
> Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent
> academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular
> sources we rely on never undergo.
>
> I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy
> itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy.
>
>
> --Mike

I agree. It's the way UNDUE is written that is problematic, and it has
led, for years, to significant-minority viewpoints being excluded --
on the grounds that the views are not sufficiently well-represented by
reliable sources; or that the reliable sources, even if peer-reviewed,
belong to the wrong field.

Sarah