Does this mean they can or not ‘handle’ the truth?
This is why I never donate to Wikipedia.
So much for the self-proclaimed “reality-based community.” “Fake but accurate” should be a punchline*, not a standard business practice. Like the false Duke Lacrosse Rape story, I guess when it comes to NDT, “the narrative was right but the facts were wrong.”
*And anyone who says it without the proper sense of irony should be punched in the face.
I’ve concluded that wikipedia citation standards favor argument by authority, which serious debaters know is a logical fallacy. If you have to analyze facts to arrive at the truth, or the citation is a less than “authoritative” source, the citation rules back the chief editors in excising it. Only statements made direct by an “authoritative” source, as judged by the editors, are safe.
In defense of Wikipedia, the articles aren’t places for argument.
If you have to analyze facts to arrive at the truth, or the citation is a less than “authoritative” source, the citation rules back the chief editors in excising it.
Which I think is a reasonable policy to have though obviously games are played as to whether a source is authoritative or not. One of the goals is to have lasting relevance. Even now, sources come and go. The primary goal of the notorious “notability” criteria is to have articles with references that are good for more than a few years.
Analysis of facts doesn’t have a place in Wikipedia. The main problem is that there isn’t a unique way to analyze facts. So which analyses should be included and which discarded?
PeterH, Is this any different from other encyclopedias? When Wikipedia is as good or better than Encyclopedia Britannica or Encyclopedia Americana, I’m happy. I don’t expect encyclopedias to be perfect, just good enough for certain pedestrian tasks.
Does this mean they can or not ‘handle’ the truth?
This is why I never donate to Wikipedia.
So much for the self-proclaimed “reality-based community.” “Fake but accurate” should be a punchline*, not a standard business practice. Like the false Duke Lacrosse Rape story, I guess when it comes to NDT, “the narrative was right but the facts were wrong.”
*And anyone who says it without the proper sense of irony should be punched in the face.
I’ve concluded that wikipedia citation standards favor argument by authority, which serious debaters know is a logical fallacy. If you have to analyze facts to arrive at the truth, or the citation is a less than “authoritative” source, the citation rules back the chief editors in excising it. Only statements made direct by an “authoritative” source, as judged by the editors, are safe.
In defense of Wikipedia, the articles aren’t places for argument.
If you have to analyze facts to arrive at the truth, or the citation is a less than “authoritative” source, the citation rules back the chief editors in excising it.
Which I think is a reasonable policy to have though obviously games are played as to whether a source is authoritative or not. One of the goals is to have lasting relevance. Even now, sources come and go. The primary goal of the notorious “notability” criteria is to have articles with references that are good for more than a few years.
Analysis of facts doesn’t have a place in Wikipedia. The main problem is that there isn’t a unique way to analyze facts. So which analyses should be included and which discarded?
PeterH, Is this any different from other encyclopedias? When Wikipedia is as good or better than Encyclopedia Britannica or Encyclopedia Americana, I’m happy. I don’t expect encyclopedias to be perfect, just good enough for certain pedestrian tasks.
I see tons of thoughtful non-partisan commentary here, particularly as you scroll down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#George_W_Bush_misquote