3 ms·
afaict they've been pretty consistent on "no original content" since the beginning. Wikipedia "wants" to be an aggregator of knowledge, not a primary source, a
by Groxx 6y ago
afaict they've been pretty consistent on "no original content" since the beginning. Wikipedia "wants" to be an aggregator of knowledge, not a primary source, and that page seems very clearly on the opposite side of that divide.
whether or not that's a useful place to draw the line: I dunno. wikipedia is what it is with that line, it's hard to say if it's a cause or in spite of it without competition.
- monocasa 6y agoIt's not really original content though, but instead a pretty accurate summary of it's citations. And now it's been distilled down to the point of being both inaccurate and difficult to find.
- Groxx 6y agoA substantial original summary is original content, in the same way as it would be if it were in a blog / magazine / etc. They've also been consistent on that. It becomes something you can't factually check / has no true references.
- monocasa 6y agoA) You can absolutely fact check. There's veritable tomes of VS documentation. Treat it like any other wiki page of a complex topic. B) It was much smaller than the Paxos page. Should we go delete what exists there too?
- Groxx 6y agoYou can fact-check anything, yeah. But there's definitely a range of ease. Tens of paragraphs of zero citations is not on the "easy" side. As to the paxos page: yeah, that looks like the thing they fairly continuously delete, despite its usefulness. There are other ways and other places to have that kind of information. Wikipedia does not seem to desire to be that location, though it'll happily be a terser summary and link to it.