[WikiEN-l] Citationgate: expertise and verifiability

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

 Robth wrote
> 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.

Actually, I think an ultra-sceptical attitude is complete poison, when it comes to learning anything you don't already know. It is actually rather symptomatic of adult learners, that they have to know everything in full detail, before assenting to anything. Insisting on reading the fine print is a good life lesson, but it is hopeless when it comes to  self-education.

I contrast what is above with the point made by [[Frank Adams]], about reading survey articles: you should try first to get the general idea of what is going on. 

I always think of WP articles as aspiring to be exactly that: good surveys. I hope it doesn't signify too much that [[survey article]] is still a red link. In such articles, anyway, it is assumed that there is a good biblography, but usually little footnoting. 

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information