[WikiEN-l] "So fix it." "The next day someone will fix it back."

[doc]

> 
> I think it is too important to be dismissive about this approach. Even
> correctly cited things can be removed or butchered, even incorrectly
> cited things can stay on. I'm not sure that increased calls for
> citation will solve or even mitigate the problem. Any academic can
> tell you that citation is hardly a gold standard; it is not what
> convinces people of the accuracy of any claim. In the end that comes
> down to trust, and that comes down to authorship, and that comes down
> to things that Wikipedia doesn't, won't, and maybe can't do right.
> 
> At this point, Wikipedia's epistemology privileges the persistant, the
> dedicated, and those with a lot of free time on their hands. Which is
> a set of qualities which describes both the best _and_ the worst
> editors.
> 
> I don't have an answer though. Just something to muse on, in the face
> of some rather derisive high-brow publicity from an immensely popular,
> immensely intelligent person.
> 
> FF
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 
Persistence can win over truth and neutrality - unless the persistent 
one is so blatantly inserting falsehoods that he is identified as a 
vandal and blocked.

On high profile articles this matters not, as the persistence of the one 
pov-pusher will be undone by the more apathetic action of the many.

The problem is with low notability articles, where one persistent pusher 
can own the article for months or years.

To harp back on to my subject of bios, here there is a real problem, not 
of the outright libeler but one someone persistently making sure the 
article includes all negative commentary (often well cited) and no 
positive. These hatchet jobs are a real problem as what really need is 
someone to equally persistently research the other side and then keep 
  it balanced. The admin called to the scene seldom had the time or 
interest.

Maybe that is just what wikipedia is. We have a great system that can 
produce great articles in fairly uncontroversial subjects, or at its 
best controversial ones where there is a large group of people with a 
cross-section of views interested. But we are crap at low-notability 
controversial subjects, and particularly bios. Maybe trying to change 
policies to correct that systemic fact is misguided.

However, the conclusion to that may well be to say that *if open, 
inclusive, wikis can't do this type of thing, then we should stop 
trying*......Maybe we need a different type of project to do 
low-notability bios, one that is willing to say - *where we can't have a 
decent fair bio, we should have no bio at all*.

Should we stop trying to be anything other than a wiki - but now accept 
the limits of that method.

Doc