[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

[Marc Riddell]

> From: jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:20:07 -0500
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)
> 
> On 12/26/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/26/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> No, a source is only required for anything that is disputed. That's
>>> pretty fundamental, WP:V. Quite workable and highly desirable.
>>> 
>>> Jay.
>> 
>> And it goes above and beyond just WP.  Citations of claims,
>> inferences/conclusions/derived statements, and non-obvious factual
>> statements (that is, not common knowledge [taking the arbitrary nature
>> of "common knowledge" into consideration, of course]) are simply an
>> academic "must" if you aim to be taken seriously.  That's how I
>> interpret relevant Wikipedia policies, and how I apply them.
> 
> That's the point; if Wikipedia is going to become a source of
> knowledge that is taken seriously, instead of being continually
> derided, its standards are going to be have to be high, rather than
> "it's ridiculous that I should have to cite all of my claims".]

Hello,

I would like to jump in here for a moment.

I have been editing in Wikipedia for nearly a year now, and have been
encouraging my colleagues (IŒm a Clinical Psychologist) to do the same. The
one overriding criticism I have heard regarding the encyclopedia is that
anyone can edit it. For a clinician, student or any professional researcher
this can (and is) quite a deterrent to taking the substance of the material
found in Wikipedia seriously. With the existence of anonymous editors adding
supposedly substantive content, it is impossible to verify and, if wanted,
to challenge this material with the person that entered it.

There seems to be a great concern about having verifiable material Œsources¹
in Wikipedia that can be checked; why not place at least as much importance
on the Œsources¹ (the editors) of the very material that is included? We
want to be able to check the reliability of the substance of the text, but
seem to place little importance on being able to check on who entered it in
the first place.

If I want to question the substance of an Article in Wikipedia, I should be
able to go to an editor¹s personal information page and get a sense that
they have the expertise to be editing the material, and a page where I can
contact them with questions. Every, reputable reference work has this.

Marc Riddell

> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l