[WikiEN-l] Abuse of your services

[Bill Konrad]

slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

> On 5/7/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> > > We don't have the resources to do any of this, which is why we rely on
> > > sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.
> >
> > That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.  However, it is not
> > Wikipedia policy.
>
> Sean, I've asked three or four times if anyone can point me to any
> part of Wikipedia policy that states or implies that Usenet is an
> acceptable source, and so far, no one has done so. My understanding of
> the policy pages (e.g. WP:NOR) is that it's not, and I sent you a link
> to the section that seems to back me up. It doesn't mention Usenet
> explicitly, but the description of what type of source is acceptable
> would definitely exclude it. I'd say you're the one operating on the
> basis of your opinion only, not me. But if I'm wrong, show me.

I do not see any explicit reference barring the use of Usenet as a source. I 
suspect that you may have a much stricter interpretation of NOR than at 
least some other Wikipedians. I think most of us would agree that individual 
postings on Usenet would not be of much value as a citation for any 
particular claim made about a specific subject (other than documenting what 
that poster said at a particular point in time). However, many usegroup have 
FAQs and other moderated documentation which are produced in a similar 
manner as the Wiki model and are roughly about as accurate as much of the 
content in Wikipedia. I see no basis for barring such content 
indiscriminately. Like most everything else on Wikipedia, determining the 
merits of any particular claim and the references supporting such a claim is 
a matter of open-ended discussion and revision.

The worthwhileness of any citation in Wikipedia is dependent on having 
multiple readers, where if the citation is being used to support a 
controverisal claim, some of those readers are willing to examine the source 
and provide a separate evaluation. You say we don't have the resources to do 
any of this, but I thought that was precisely the strength of the Wiki 
editing model--hundreds, thousands, or even potentially millions of 
readers/editors, some of whom have the interest and motivation to cull out 
the worst crap and revise and improve that which is worth keeping. I've seen 
numerous attempts to use mainstream sources to support claims that upon 
closer examination were not actually supported by the sources. Without 
someone willing to examine the sources and evaluate the merits, anyone can 
make up citations that "look" good.

Bkonrad