Sounds to me like an excellent case for applying some kind of reputation system that recursively calculates expertise in a field, ala PageRank, & weights contested claims accordingly. Not an easy design job but it'd eliminate a major source of conflict, or at least redirect it to a new field of battle that gives truth an advantage over nonsense.
Think about it: this is emphatically not how science works. Theories are not given more or less weight based on whether the purveyor of that theory is more or less of an expert. Scientists actually have to come to the table and objectively demonstrate that their theories have weight. It's the same with history; there are certainly great historians, but their theories and ideas are not accepted because those historians have good reputations as experts; they're accepted because they present evidence which supports their ideas.
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.
Citizendium has had its own problems, the biggest one being the near takeover of articles on subjects like homeopathy and chiropractic by alt-med cranks.
Over at the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association, we are having a colossally hard time getting any fuel cell- or hydrogen-related Wikipedia pages to reflect the current state of the industry because one guy--who is affiliated with Joe Romm, who made up his mind about H2 in 2005--polices it. Wikipedia is a lot like the U.S. Senate. It preserves the rights of the minority, even if the minority is abusing those rights to obstruct legitimate progress and the introduction of new information.
Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, defines the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth."
"When I reviewed his explanation in Talk to defend his changes, I saw that he was citing a blog -- which is also not acceptable as a WP:RS. Even worse, when I tried to follow his link to the blog, it was a subscription-only link."
"Fair enough. You might also consult the citation provided in the article for the McCormick deaths, that of Green, pp. 162-171. Note that this cited source does not claim that six men were killed, only that August Spies claimed that six men were killed in his Revenge leaflet. Thus, the source cited does not actually support the fact alleged.MesserKruse (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I checked Avrich and corrected the number of fatalities at McCormick. Thanks for bringing the error to our attention. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented (and as presented).
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing but argued that the person who had thrown the bomb had been encouraged to do so by the defendants ...
The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, offered some evidence and witnesses connecting some of the defendants with the bombing but argued that other defendants were guilty because the person who had thrown the bomb had been encouraged to do so by the defendants ...
« Older MIT's beloved professor Walter Lewin is famous for... | They screamed and shouted, beg... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt