[WikiEN-l] Citationgate: expertise and verifiability

[Robth]

On 9/29/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:

> Wikipedia has a unique _requirement_ for very dense references,
> _denser_ than those found in research papers or nonfiction books, so
> it is not surprising that traditional solutions are not perfect for
> Wikipedia, and that we will need to think of better approaches.
>
> 2) "If it appears in numerous textbooks it does not need a citation."
> This is silly. The problem is that there is no way the reader or
> anybody else can tell the difference between a sentence which lacks a
> reference _because somebody has checked_ to make sure that it appears
> in numerous textbooks, and a sentence which lacks a reference
> because_ someone just typed it in off the top of their head_. They
> look the same.

Yes, yes, yes.  Our articles need to come in with a chip on their shoulders,
as it were.  There is no external reason to believe that what it says resembles
the truth, no author or organization claiming responsibility for the text. The
article needs to make a case for the information it presents being
accurate. Don't
just state facts, show the reader how they can confirm the accuracy of the
statements.  Trusting a Wikipedia article requres a leap of faith; we want to
minimize the distance of that leap.

-- 
Robth
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robth)