[WikiEN-l] A good enough policy (Was: Original research)

[R E Broadley]

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Shane King wrote:
>  
>
>>I've been thinking about this for a few days, and I can't get around one 
>>basic issue: we haven't solved the problem. We've shifted the burden of 
>>evaluating the credibility of the theory to evaluating the credibility 
>>of the sources. I see no reason to believe we're any better at 
>>evaluating the credibility of sources than of theories.
>>    
>>
>
>Oh, I think it is a lot easier to evaluate the credibility of sources
>than the credibility of theories.  If you offer me your personal
>theory of "Liquidity, Efficiency, and Bank Bailouts" then it's going
>to be quite hard for me to judge whether you are an economics crank or
>someone with an interesting theory.  But if you point me to an essay
>of that title in _American Economic Review_, I can feel comfortable
>that it is at least credible.
>  
>
What about an article written by an associate editor of the New 
Republic?  It's still surprising to see how many articles have referred 
to information in Stephen Glass's "Hack Haven" article as a credible source.

(However, despite how much the reliability of usually credible sources 
can be disputed, I realize Wikipedia needs a clear-cut policy on this, 
and that there is probably no such thing as bullet proof policy on 
ensuring that everything reported is 100% accurate.)

As such, despite theories such as the [[propaganda theory]] (by [[Noam 
Chomsky]]) or other recent court cases proving that big News stations 
(e.g. Fox News) can lie legally (due to the 1st amendment overriding 
whistle-blowing laws), I still reckon Wikipedia has a much better chance 
of being a source for reliable information than most places due to its 
collaborative design.

$0.02,
Rebroad

Ed