4 ms·

Importantly Wikipedia doesn't strive to be "true" or "accurate", rather it strives to be well-sourced and verifiable. That would understandably be a difficult c

Importantly Wikipedia doesn't strive to be "true" or "accurate", rather it strives to be well-sourced and verifiable. That would understandably be a difficult concept to grasp for an outlet that simply fabricates what it wishes the truth to be.

cperciva 10y ago
To be fair, Wikipedia is often sourced, but not necessarily well sourced. A while back when I needed to provide a "source" for a fact I simply tweeted it and then cited the tweet.
- avar 10y ago
  It depends on the context. Was this a citation on the Tarsnap article? If so you just saying something publicly is a good a source as any, it doesn't matter that the publishing platform is Twitter or the New York Times. Actually Twitter can be a much better source than an accredited newspaper, because in this case it would be coming directly from you, and you wouldn't need to worry that perhaps the source was being paraphrased, or the context wasn't what they intended.
  - r0muald 10y ago
    That's not how Wikipedia works. You are not a reliable source about yourself, be it social media, blogs, company websites.
    - pwdisswordfish 10y ago
      Policy says otherwise, and this particular one doesn't seem to be ignored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-p... The general bias seems to be in favour of treating sources as acceptable, unless there are reasons not to; though that may be just a matter of enforcement.
- sametmax 10y ago
  If the article is about you and you need a source to justified a personal opinion, a tweet is not that bad. It's easy to fake but hard to make doesn't make something trud, just hard to counter
  - cperciva 10y ago
    Oddly enough, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Percival https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Percival is a redirect to the page about Tarsnap. I guess someone decided that was more likely to be what people were looking for than the pages about Portsnap, scrypt, PiHex, or any of the other pages which discuss my work less directly...
- geezerjay 10y ago
  > A while back when I needed to provide a "source" for a fact I simply tweeted it and then cited the tweet. I have to call bullshit on that. Wikipedia's notability criteria specifically excludes blogs and social media as acceptable sources, with the sole exception of being posts made by the source himself (i.e., Linus Thorvald's comments on Linux posted on the lkml)
  - cperciva 10y ago
    I have to call bullshit on that. Regardless of what the wikipedia guidelines might say, it happened.
    - geezerjay 10y ago
      It can only happen if somehow Wikipedia's citation process is intentionally circumvented, and if no other user ever reads the article to fix the error. If you read Wikipedia's citation guidelines, that goes against a couple of very basic rules.
    - vacri 10y ago
      However, by tweeting it and referencing the tweet, you have created a breadcrumb trail for someone who wants to investigate further. Providing sources isn't just for 'factual proof', it's also for investigation - if someone is interested in a topic, they can go to referenced sources. It's the whole point of references in academic papers: "To know more, start here".
bigbugbag 10y ago
This is cited as a reason why wikipedia is bleeding out contributors, though there's no mention of being sourced or verifiable here: If a majority at Wikipedia decided that 2 + 2 = 5, then that's what Wikipedia will publish. Similarly, if a majority decides that "4" shall not be mentioned, then it will not be mentioned. On Wikipedia, fact, and truth, have no validity in themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies#Facts_.26_Truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_los...

cperciva 10y ago

To be fair, Wikipedia is often sourced, but not necessarily well sourced. A while back when I needed to provide a "source" for a fact I simply tweeted it and then cited the tweet.

avar 10y ago
It depends on the context. Was this a citation on the Tarsnap article? If so you just saying something publicly is a good a source as any, it doesn't matter that the publishing platform is Twitter or the New York Times. Actually Twitter can be a much better source than an accredited newspaper, because in this case it would be coming directly from you, and you wouldn't need to worry that perhaps the source was being paraphrased, or the context wasn't what they intended.
- r0muald 10y ago
  That's not how Wikipedia works. You are not a reliable source about yourself, be it social media, blogs, company websites.
  - pwdisswordfish 10y ago
    Policy says otherwise, and this particular one doesn't seem to be ignored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-p... The general bias seems to be in favour of treating sources as acceptable, unless there are reasons not to; though that may be just a matter of enforcement.
sametmax 10y ago
If the article is about you and you need a source to justified a personal opinion, a tweet is not that bad. It's easy to fake but hard to make doesn't make something trud, just hard to counter
- cperciva 10y ago
  Oddly enough, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Percival https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Percival is a redirect to the page about Tarsnap. I guess someone decided that was more likely to be what people were looking for than the pages about Portsnap, scrypt, PiHex, or any of the other pages which discuss my work less directly...
geezerjay 10y ago
> A while back when I needed to provide a "source" for a fact I simply tweeted it and then cited the tweet. I have to call bullshit on that. Wikipedia's notability criteria specifically excludes blogs and social media as acceptable sources, with the sole exception of being posts made by the source himself (i.e., Linus Thorvald's comments on Linux posted on the lkml)
- cperciva 10y ago
  I have to call bullshit on that. Regardless of what the wikipedia guidelines might say, it happened.
  - geezerjay 10y ago
    It can only happen if somehow Wikipedia's citation process is intentionally circumvented, and if no other user ever reads the article to fix the error. If you read Wikipedia's citation guidelines, that goes against a couple of very basic rules.
  - vacri 10y ago
    However, by tweeting it and referencing the tweet, you have created a breadcrumb trail for someone who wants to investigate further. Providing sources isn't just for 'factual proof', it's also for investigation - if someone is interested in a topic, they can go to referenced sources. It's the whole point of references in academic papers: "To know more, start here".

bigbugbag 10y ago

This is cited as a reason why wikipedia is bleeding out contributors, though there's no mention of being sourced or verifiable here: If a majority at Wikipedia decided that 2 + 2 = 5, then that's what Wikipedia will publish. Similarly, if a majority decides that "4" shall not be mentioned, then it will not be mentioned. On Wikipedia, fact, and truth, have no validity in themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies#Facts_.26_Truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_los...