[WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

[Ray Saintonge]

Phil Sandifer wrote:

>On Feb 24, 2007, at 10:26 PM, geni wrote:
>  
>
>>For an  impossible task it appears to have been done an awful lot of
>>times. Anyone writing a review article will establish what is and is
>>not a reliable source.
>>    
>>
>Yes. But they don't do it in an absolute, black and white sense that  
>is proscriptive for all other review articles.
>
Sorry to breach etiquette, but did you not mean "prescriptive" instead 
of "proscriptive"?  There's a big difference.

>>It generally fairly well known which journals can be trusted and which
>>ones need to be used with caution that the reactions they describe may
>>only work one time in 10.
>>    
>>
>But [[WP:RS]] lacks a list of those. And no such list readily  
>presents itself in the humanities.
>
Taking this to it's logical conclusion, a claim that a source is 
reliable is a statement that should itself be reliably sourced.

>>Depends on the area you are looking at. I'm seeing a lot more  
>>citations.
>>    
>>
>Citations != quality. And are, in fact, at times antithetical to it.  
>The more citations to secondary sources [[Jacques Derrida]] has, the  
>worse of an article it will be. Guarantee it.
>
An excess of citations can have the appearance of a snow job.

>>>[[WP:AGF]]
>>>      
>>>
>>We are talking about stuff off wikipedia here. AGF does not apply.
>>Thus there is no reason to make assumptions of any type.
>>    
>>
>We're talking about well-intentioned critiques of how Wikipedia is  
>working. The prerequisite for assuming good faith is not an account -  
>it's a contribution to the conversation. Noah, McCloud, and Straub  
>have all contributed to the conversation and deserve at least an  
>assumption of good faith.
>
Yes!  Geni's rejection of Assume Good Faith gives the impression that 
this maxim was newly invented for Wikipedia.  It has long been a 
fundamental principle for anyone to get along.

Ec