On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Right now I don't see that we have a "culture of referencing" in the same way that we have a "culture of completeness" organized around lists of missing articles, or a "culture of image tagging" that has become fairly effective at searching out and destroying bad uploads. For instance, my own library is in some areas better than what most universities have, yet I have no idea if there are articles that need me to go pull a book off the shelf, check the claims, and type in the reference if OK. I could also imagine a future culture where an unsupported claim is handled like an untagged image, and gets a seven-day grace period before being reverted. As with images, good faith is helped along by having a bit of incentive and punishment.
Right. And why is that? Because referencing is hard. Finding good sources is generally difficult, and takes time and effort. And it doesn't have that same neat, orderly feel about it that attracts people to tasks like filling in red links, stub sorting or categorising. It takes all sorts to make Wikipedia work, but frankly, we need a lot more of the people that like finding sources on random subjects and researching them, to make Wikipedia meet its goals.
I actually don't think finding good sources or referencing is particularly hard, it just isn't very well suited to the current wiki software. When writing an academic paper finding sources and writing the actual text is two separate steps. Wikis jumble the two very different steps into one.
How to address that at this point, without upsetting everything (and everyone), is a very difficult question to answer.
Anthony