3 ms·

> Let me put it this way: Wikipedia wouldn't even allow Wikipedia to be used as a source for one if it's articles, because it's too unreliable Er.. I think you

by ris 6y ago

> Let me put it this way: Wikipedia wouldn't even allow Wikipedia to be used as a source for one if it's articles, because it's too unreliable Er.. I think you're missing the point of citing sources. If an otherwise unverified claim could cite as its source another unverified claim, it would make citing sources meaningless. If a wikipedia article wanted to cite a verified claim from another wikipedia article that did have a verified source, they may as well just use that original source as their source too. I think your example actually shows wikipedia in a very good light.

tablespoon 6y ago
> Er.. I think you're missing the point of citing sources. If an otherwise unverified claim could cite as its source another unverified claim, it would make citing sources meaningless. If a wikipedia article wanted to cite a verified claim from another wikipedia article that did have a verified source, they may as well just use that original source as their source too. 1) The Wikipedia guideline doesn't mention that logic, 2) quite a lot of Wikipedia doesn't cite anything, and 3) it not unusual for a passage in Wikipedia to not actually be supported by the citation given (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Failed_verification&limit=500 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinks...). In any case, this is getting off topic. My point was that, if you're looking for an ark of cultural knowledge to survive some apocalypse, Wikipedia's a bad choice. IMHO, something like Project Gutenberg plus a newspaper archive would be about 1000% better, and take up far less space. If you got space to spare, throw in Libgen. Wikipedia's not a replacement for its sources, and I pity the future scholar that would have to rely on it without being able to check them. But unless your data storage is orders of magnitude more reliable than any current technology and you package your archive with an equally reliable computer to read it, the concept of a digital ark fails. If you don't to that, your archive will be unreadable, and and unreadable archive is useless.

by ris 6y ago

tablespoon 6y ago

> Er.. I think you're missing the point of citing sources. If an otherwise unverified claim could cite as its source another unverified claim, it would make citing sources meaningless. If a wikipedia article wanted to cite a verified claim from another wikipedia article that did have a verified source, they may as well just use that original source as their source too. 1) The Wikipedia guideline doesn't mention that logic, 2) quite a lot of Wikipedia doesn't cite anything, and 3) it not unusual for a passage in Wikipedia to not actually be supported by the citation given (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Failed_verification&limit=500 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinks...). In any case, this is getting off topic. My point was that, if you're looking for an ark of cultural knowledge to survive some apocalypse, Wikipedia's a bad choice. IMHO, something like Project Gutenberg plus a newspaper archive would be about 1000% better, and take up far less space. If you got space to spare, throw in Libgen. Wikipedia's not a replacement for its sources, and I pity the future scholar that would have to rely on it without being able to check them. But unless your data storage is orders of magnitude more reliable than any current technology and you package your archive with an equally reliable computer to read it, the concept of a digital ark fails. If you don't to that, your archive will be unreadable, and and unreadable archive is useless.