3 ms·
It depend so. The amount of trust I want to give. By citing an obscure book I can judge the fact "hm, that book sounds obscure, why isn't there some other sourc
by johannes1234321 4y ago
It depend so. The amount of trust I want to give. By citing an obscure book I can judge the fact "hm, that book sounds obscure, why isn't there some other source?" and then decide how much weight I give to it.
And if I don't have the book at hand I can identify the person who added the citation and can see what other edits they did to judge their domain knowledge.
- chx 4y agoNo one does this. And Wikipedia myths spread to other media until it's hard to pinpoint where it started.
- stordoff 4y agoSometimes referred to as citogenesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting#Circular_reporting_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting#Circular_re... There is a list of known incidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_...
- 6510 4y agoBut in case they do you can ask your other well established sleeper account for a book reference then reply a few days later with a: This is what I found posting. Then when asked you can point to yourself and say I've asked him. Do a conversation with yourself weighting how a book is hard to validate vs how important the information is to the article.