[WikiEN-l] Slashdot article

[Philip Sandifer]

On Oct 22, 2008, at 3:09 PM, WJhonson at aol.com wrote:

> Firstly, our articles are not about "corrections" because they are  
> not  about
> "errors".  Attribution isn't truth, so it can't be in error.   The  
> only way
> for an attribution to be in error is to mis-quote it.  Making  it a  
> meta-error.
> The error being about the wording, not about the  underlying  
> meaning.  We do
> not require someone to publish in a secondary  source in order to  
> quote them.
> We quote primary sources as well.   However the essential point  
> should be
> raised first in a secondary source, and  then the primary source can  
> be used to
> enlarge or clarify the secondary.
>

The problem here is that this line of reasoning, though consistent, is  
divorced from how people actually use an encyclopedia. We use  
attribution and verifiability because, in empirical fact, they are  
reasonably similar to truth. But in terms of actual use of Wikipedia  
as a resource, people depend on that isomorphism between accuracy and  
attribution. When that isomorphism breaks down, it poses a genuine  
problem.

> Finally, as others have pointed out, we have no way of knowing  
> whether an
> editor is who-they-claim-to-be.  So they should, firstly, post  
> their  material
> to their own *official* website and then perhaps it can be  quoted.   
> This has
> happened in many cases.  If they decline, then that  is not our  
> concern,
> apparently it's not important enough for them to do the  obvious.

This ethic that people are responsible for our not fucking up their  
articles has rightly been considered offensive by numerous actual  
people.

-Phil