Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Wikipedia:Verifiability - Mailing lists as sources

From:John Vertical <johnvertical@...>
Date:Tuesday, February 26, 2008, 11:39
Some semi-random musings on the subject.

>And in its place we constantly >face tags, tags, and more tags. Right now, you virtually can't write >a single word without having to add at least five references that >prove it, otherwise you'll promptly get a tag.
I don't see what's bad about *tags*. It's simply to say "we need a reference for this". I don't think their decision to put the threshold of inclusion at verifiability is stupid at all, because otherwise, who's to tell someone isn't just making things up? The types of subjects for which verifiable sorces do not exist aren't likely to get a large amount of specialist attention weeding out nonsense, either. Deletionism, tho... A possible easy solution that comes to mind would be an "extended hang-on" tag, meaning "don't straight-on delete, someone is out there looking for references (or locating existing ones)". Maybe there is one, even? I haven't looked. IMO the gist of the issue is more about the "no original reserch" clause. Strictly in the context of an encyclopedia this again makes sense, but Wikipedia, however, for a long time now hasn't been treated by Jane Q. Surfer as a "reliable encyclopedia on estabilish'd information" as much as "Jimbo's big bag of trivia", like it or not. My preference would be to either a) see original reserch allowed on fields for which no academic or compareable reserch exists (and with clear guidelines for how to, not "anything goes"), one huge example being pop culture. Or, b) to basically split everything in Wikipedia between, I dunno, Citizendium and Everything^2. Currently its stated goals and de_facto direction are just in too much of a collision. "Free encyclopedia that everyone can edit" clearly quickly turns into "indiscriminate collection of information" (which Wikipedia explictely however purports to not be), and at that stage you ARE going to get a backslash of the admins wishing to limit the "anyone" part when their experiment isn't working. As far as conlanging goes, I agree with Mark that very very few conlangs would need an encyclopedia article. There's the problem, tho, that excess external links are discouraged out of fear of Advertizing, and so it can sometimes be difficult to find any in-depth resorces. This always seemed like throing the baby out with the bathwater, to me... Also:
>After all, encyclopædias (which they are trying to be) aren't supposed >to be sources to reference, but rather something lists basic >information about a topic and includes lists of "real" references, >which would be the ones you cite instead.
I don't think I've ever seen any references in a DTF encyclopedia. John Vertical