[WikiEN-l] Independent article

[David Gerard]

On 17/01/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, so what do we do when mostly we're right, we're occasionally
> laughably (or harmfully?) wrong, and we don't seem to have much
> control either way? Tough to implement any policies telling vandals
> how to behave when they're up to no good...


I've been trying to turn the phrase "Wikipedia is not a reliable
source" into a positive thing ;-)

"What people say is true, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We can't
guarantee it. It's a useful source and we try to keep it useful, but
it's just written by people - read it critically, like you would any
web page. If you see something really surprising like that, check the
history tab and see if it was just added ..."

Journalists are a good audience to get this across to, because they
looove Wikipedia - it's the universal background resource (an area
where our breadth is a strength).

This is also useful for getting across to journalists that saying
"according to Wikipedia" is as appropriate as it would be using any
useful but non-canonical source. Attribute your sources!


- d.