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

[Fred Bauder]

> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Apart from the question of whether this particular article -- on the
>> Haymarket bombing -- has been hurt by editors' ill-considered
>> application of UNDUE, there's the larger question of what it means for
>> our credibility when a very respected journal, The Chronicle of Higher
>> Education, features an op-ed that outlines, in very convincing detail,
>> what happens when a subject-matter expert attempts to play the rules
>> and is still slapped down. If I thought this author's experience is
>> rare, I wouldn't be troubled by it. But as someone who frequently
>> fielded complaints from folks who were not tendentious kooks, my
>> impression is that it is not rare, and that the language of UNDUE --
>> as it exists today -- ends up being leveraged in a way that hurts
>> Wikipedia both informationally and reputationally.
>>
>
> Do you have specific ideas either as to what is wrong with the current
> language, or what it should be changed to say?
>
> Mike

Would any of you consider joining the discussion at

Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#The_.27Undue_Weight.27_of_Truth_on_Wikipedia

I've probably gotten it off to a bad start, and perhaps that is not the
place to discuss the policy, but I suspect it is.

Fred