On 11/21/05, Brown, Darin Darin.Brown@enmu.edu wrote:
Now, let's examine what kind of "reasoning" is going on here:
Almost nothing has been written on this article at the moment, (2 lines), yet someone is already taking pre-emptive measures to assert that this person's writings (none of whose claims have even been articulated in the article) are false before the article is "finalized or posted". Just the wording there tells me this is someone completely unfamiliar with wikipedia.
On top of this, this nonsense about a "bibliography being false", confusing it with the claims in the elements of the bibliography. You could use this against anyone. You could say, "well, we shouldn't have articles on holocaust deniers, because their bibliographies (sic) are false". Their bibliographies are NOT FALSE -- holocaust deniers may be spouting incredibly false statements, but the existence of their publications is not "false". I am shocked at the lack of basic logic and reasoning used at this talk page and elsewhere.
People appear to be being sceptical. You want a facturaly correct wikipedia that is the price you have to pay.
Note also the fact that the New York Native has no wikipedia is article is used as "evidence". This is even worse than googling and alexa rankings. As I've said before, ignorance knows no bounds, and nothing will stop people from pontificating about things which they're completely ignorant of.
For western subjects the "has wikipedia heard of anthing related to this guy" is quite a good test. If you ever go through AFD deleted articles tend to be orphans. While this of course breaks down when it it comes to non western topics the shear level of coverage of western topics does make it a vaguely useful thing to cheack
Of course, what do I care. Episodes like this have already driven me leaving wikipedia for now, creating a new wikicity and consulting wikipedia just to copy stuff to it.
darin
Fine. As long as you stay within the terms of the GDFL we can still use anything you produce.
-- geni