[WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 17, Issue 16

[Charles Matthews]

Robert Graham Merkel wrote

> Notwithstanding this, referencing is *essential*.  How else are we
> supposed to fact-check the Wikipedia?

I'd answer that in several ways:

(i) citing references for things not hard to check independently is not
necessarily important or useful (the Queen Victoria article currently on the
Main Page doesn't need to supply a reference for her dates);
(ii) anyone can use a talk page to ask for references and start a discussion
on sources.

The conclusion from that much is that referencing should be targeted.  It is
best if it goes to the crux of an argument.

(iii) I recently added a [[J. H. Hexter]] page - he it was who got the
historians talking about 'splitters' and 'lumpers' of source material.

Conclusion is that references are not solely about supporting facts or
enabling fact-checking. They are partly to do with how you use your
highlighter pen on the background material.

(iv) I found the [[objectivity (journalism)]] page interesting when I saw it
(a few changes since that), though not necessarily because I entirely
agreed.

It is sometimes suggested that American and European journalism differ on
the place of fact-checking.  (Certainly UK newspapers are quite
free-wheeling, and are not necessarily the worse - at least they aren't
bland, though often bad too.)

Anyway, WP should try to get along with principles like Assume Good Faith
and collegiality, as well as style guides.  Editors of WP pages should be
assumed in the first instance to have reasons for writng as they do, and can
be asked politely to support unclear and contentious points.

Charles