3 ms·
Assuming its all crowd sourced, why can't we just verify the details that were linked instead of shooting the messenger? Isn't that the behavior we would want t
by alttab 8y ago
Assuming its all crowd sourced, why can't we just verify the details that were linked instead of shooting the messenger? Isn't that the behavior we would want to see in persuit of information and the truth? Character assassination, regardless of how bad a source is, doesn't mean that the source is always wrong.
For instance, National Enquirer was the first to break the story about Monica Lewinsky.
- dagw 8y agoWikipedia isn't about breaking news. I don't see a problem with waiting until you have 3-4 news sites with better track records independently corroborateing the story.
- emodendroket 8y agoThis seems like a misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia; if it were as you suggest, original research based on primary sources would be encouraged. In reality it is not, because the idea with Wikipedia is to produce articles based on reliable secondary sources, which precludes the use of a source like Breitbart, Occupy Democrats, or Infowars, to take examples from the article.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Assuming its all crowd sourced, why can't we just verify the details that were linked instead of shooting the messenger? Wikipedia is a tertiary source by design; you seem to be suggesting it should be a primary or secondary source, which is not it's mission.