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

[Mike Godwin]

I should add a response on this point:

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert
<george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

> The post-facto probability of 1.0 that the researcher was in fact
> professional, credible, and by all accounts right does not mean that a
> priori he should automatically have been treated that way before the
> situation was clarified.

Should we declare that "Assume Good Faith" is now a dead letter?

> By far the majority of people who come up and "buck the system" or
> challenge established knowledge in this manner are, in fact, kooks or
> people with an agenda.

To me the interesting thing is that this author did not "buck the
system." It seems clear he attempted to learn the system and abide by
the system's rules. If someone goes to the trouble he went to, getting
an article published in a peer-reviewed journal, then citing it in his
editing of the Wikipedia article, what else could he have done,
precisely?

If we pass over this and classify it as an anomaly, then I think the
very best thing that can be said is that this is a missed opportunity
to review UNDUE specifically, and, more generally, the problem of
policy ambiguity and complexity as a barrier to entry for new,
knowledgeable, good-faith editors.


--Mike