4 ms·

It would be nice if Wikipedia let you vote on citations kind of like reddit. That way there is an easy consensus on what the top citations are and what the most

It would be nice if Wikipedia let you vote on citations kind of like reddit. That way there is an easy consensus on what the top citations are and what the most dubious ones are. There can also be software/bots written to react to low vote citations in certain manners. It would change a lot. The only other wiki site I know that lets you do this is Everipedia and Infogalactic, but they have nowhere near the amount of traffic as Wikipedia.

lutusp 10y ago
> It would be nice if Wikipedia let you vote on citations kind of like reddit. That way there is an easy consensus on what the top citations are and what the most dubious ones are. That doesn't work at Reddit, and it wouldn't work at Wikipedia for the same reason -- people who vote about the topic, not the quality of its presentation. This is probably why such a system hasn't been put in place.
geezerjay 10y ago
>It would be nice if Wikipedia let you vote on citations kind of like reddit. I have to disagree. Facts don't depend on popularity nor are they subjected to a democratic vote. Either something is true or it isn't. Once you subject the presentation of corroborated facts to votes, you are establishing a system to manipulate what facts are presented based on how many votes you can mobilise (or fabricate) then your only accomplishment is the establishment of a system to censor away inconvenient facts that is rigged in favour of those who are able to pay the right PR company to shut down inconvenient facts.
- ars 10y ago
  You wish facts were so simple. Is the new calendar reform idea wonderful or terrible? Will the new oil pipe under a lake hurt the environment? Is the universe expanding or are we misunderstand the data and invoking dark energy? "Facts" you can't argue with are very very rare. They are typically observation without conclusion or understanding. But because they lack those they are rarely very useful.
  - kiriakasis 10y ago
    >Will the new oil pipe under a lake hurt the environment? >Is the new calendar reform idea wonderful or terrible? Wikipedia is not supposed to give you the true truth on everything a "fact" would be "oil pipes in the past had frequent leak that damaged the environment", "This oil pipe was described as vital by various industries^[1]" or "scientific research raised many environmental concern over this oil pipe" In a sourced encyclopedia "facts" means something you can refer to and (at your choice) distrust (sorry if rude, not so well versed in english)
- ProxCoques 10y ago
  "Once you subject the presentation of corroborated facts to votes, you are establishing a system to manipulate" You appear to be unaware that Wikipedia's Articles For Deletion process is essentially based on a voting system. What you say about the nature of voting and censoring is basically at the heart of the criticisms of Wikipedia's editorial process.
  - geezerjay 10y ago
    > You appear to be unaware that Wikipedia's Articles For Deletion process is essentially based on a voting system. Your comment is disingenuous at best. The voting process only applies to articles which were nominated for deletion and fail to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notoriety. That means that you can only vote in favour of deleting any article if it already fails to meet the requirements for hosting the article to begin with. In case you didn't understood the process, voting only applies either to false positives or false negatives. The process is set to make it possible to delete only articles which fail to be shown to be relevant. For example, you can't even nominate well established articles such as the article on Jesus Christ by any means, including nominating it to the AfD Do read up on the process instead of making up stuff about it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy
    - ProxCoques 10y ago
      "The voting process only applies to articles which were nominated for deletion and fail to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notoriety." Citation please. Look, I'll ignore your remark about disingenuousness because you're clearly confused. As per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process "Normally, a deletion discussion must be held to form a consensus to delete a page." The convention in such discussions is essentially a vote. Yes, it's a discussion vote, but that's the process of Consensus: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

lutusp 10y ago

> It would be nice if Wikipedia let you vote on citations kind of like reddit. That way there is an easy consensus on what the top citations are and what the most dubious ones are. That doesn't work at Reddit, and it wouldn't work at Wikipedia for the same reason -- people who vote about the topic, not the quality of its presentation. This is probably why such a system hasn't been put in place.

geezerjay 10y ago

>It would be nice if Wikipedia let you vote on citations kind of like reddit. I have to disagree. Facts don't depend on popularity nor are they subjected to a democratic vote. Either something is true or it isn't. Once you subject the presentation of corroborated facts to votes, you are establishing a system to manipulate what facts are presented based on how many votes you can mobilise (or fabricate) then your only accomplishment is the establishment of a system to censor away inconvenient facts that is rigged in favour of those who are able to pay the right PR company to shut down inconvenient facts.

ars 10y ago
You wish facts were so simple. Is the new calendar reform idea wonderful or terrible? Will the new oil pipe under a lake hurt the environment? Is the universe expanding or are we misunderstand the data and invoking dark energy? "Facts" you can't argue with are very very rare. They are typically observation without conclusion or understanding. But because they lack those they are rarely very useful.
- kiriakasis 10y ago
  >Will the new oil pipe under a lake hurt the environment? >Is the new calendar reform idea wonderful or terrible? Wikipedia is not supposed to give you the true truth on everything a "fact" would be "oil pipes in the past had frequent leak that damaged the environment", "This oil pipe was described as vital by various industries^[1]" or "scientific research raised many environmental concern over this oil pipe" In a sourced encyclopedia "facts" means something you can refer to and (at your choice) distrust (sorry if rude, not so well versed in english)
ProxCoques 10y ago
"Once you subject the presentation of corroborated facts to votes, you are establishing a system to manipulate" You appear to be unaware that Wikipedia's Articles For Deletion process is essentially based on a voting system. What you say about the nature of voting and censoring is basically at the heart of the criticisms of Wikipedia's editorial process.
- geezerjay 10y ago
  > You appear to be unaware that Wikipedia's Articles For Deletion process is essentially based on a voting system. Your comment is disingenuous at best. The voting process only applies to articles which were nominated for deletion and fail to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notoriety. That means that you can only vote in favour of deleting any article if it already fails to meet the requirements for hosting the article to begin with. In case you didn't understood the process, voting only applies either to false positives or false negatives. The process is set to make it possible to delete only articles which fail to be shown to be relevant. For example, you can't even nominate well established articles such as the article on Jesus Christ by any means, including nominating it to the AfD Do read up on the process instead of making up stuff about it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy
  - ProxCoques 10y ago
    "The voting process only applies to articles which were nominated for deletion and fail to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notoriety." Citation please. Look, I'll ignore your remark about disingenuousness because you're clearly confused. As per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process "Normally, a deletion discussion must be held to form a consensus to delete a page." The convention in such discussions is essentially a vote. Yes, it's a discussion vote, but that's the process of Consensus: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus