[WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 41, Issue 153

[Rich Holton]

Sarah wrote:
> On 12/19/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Sarah wrote
>>> Any public library can order material that's in a regular academic
>>> library.
>> Sorry - any public library in Kerala, Kampala or even Lima can order up anything from any academic library? Do remember that this is a global project. The 'populist' idea that anybody should be able to fact-check anything rather founders on the reality that it at most refers to about 5% of the world population, selected just about entirely on wealth.
>>
>> We are really doing the opposite: making the cream of reliable-source material actually globally available whereever there is a decent internet connection.
>>
> Charles, anyone in the English-speaking world should be able easily to
> fact-check our material, and this is the English-language Wikipedia,
> so that has to be our priority. Your argument seems to be that because
> everyone in the world can't fact-check it, no one should be able to,
> and that we should instead leave the writing and research to
> self-selected Wikipiedia "experts," many of whom are anonymous and may
> have no expertise at all, or if they do, may not be highly regarded by
> other experts in the field.
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly that we should make the cream of
> reliable-source material globally available, but I strongly disagree
> with allowing Wikipedians to insert their own opinions and
> interpretations between those sources and our readers.
> 
> Sarah

Sarah,

It seems to me that there are two related but separate issues that are 
getting intertwined here. I'm not sure if I'm just reading you wrong, or 
  something else.

At times it seems that you are suggesting that reference material that 
is not "generally available" is off limits for Wikipedia references. 
While we might be able to discuss what level of unavailability makes a 
reference unsatisfactory, but those responding here seem to think that, 
for instance, a legal database, or a subscription-only database are 
acceptable.

The other issue is that of Original Research, and where "collation and 
organization" becomes OR.

My thought is that it's better to keep the two issues separate. If you 
see them as directly related, please do make it clear how.

-Rich