4 ms·

There's nobody I'd trust less than a Wikipedia editor to act as the arbiter of truth, but they could still do better. Wikipedía could adopt a policy of preferr

There's nobody I'd trust less than a Wikipedia editor to act as the arbiter of truth, but they could still do better. Wikipedía could adopt a policy of preferring primary sources over secondary, which would still keep out the "teach the controversy" cranks who are the obvious reason for the "undue weight" criterion without affecting well researched rebuttals of conventional folly. They consciously choose to do the exact opposite, preferring popular opinion to actual verifiability, and IMO that's wrong.

starwed 15y ago
Wikipedia has explicitly adopted the opposite policy, and they didn't do so arbitrarily. In specific cases it might seem stupid, but I think in general it makes sense. It goes hand in hand with the "no original research" policy. (Like everything in wikipedia that policy can be misapplied by small minded people, though.)
- CPlatypus 15y ago
  The "no original research" policy is fine when it prevents self-citation, but when it prevents citation of little-read but thoroughly credible third-party sources such as court transcripts that's a different matter.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    No, it's really not. The proper venue for interpretation of little-read primary sources like court transcripts is a book or journal article, not an encyclopedia.
    - CPlatypus 15y ago
      Nobody's talking about interpretation. I was referring to mere verification that the source exists and says what it's claimed to. That can and should happen in an encyclopedia.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        That's not what he did. He synthesized from the primary sources text that contradicted the majority of all published sources on the incident, including what was up until then the most authoritative source. That obviously should not be happening in an encyclopedia. But let's be careful about wording. It obviously shouldn't happen in an encyclopedia. But it obviously should be happening. And it did. He went on to write an authoritative secondary source and the article is sure to reflect it.

starwed 15y ago

Wikipedia has explicitly adopted the opposite policy, and they didn't do so arbitrarily. In specific cases it might seem stupid, but I think in general it makes sense. It goes hand in hand with the "no original research" policy. (Like everything in wikipedia that policy can be misapplied by small minded people, though.)

CPlatypus 15y ago
The "no original research" policy is fine when it prevents self-citation, but when it prevents citation of little-read but thoroughly credible third-party sources such as court transcripts that's a different matter.
- tptacek 15y ago
  No, it's really not. The proper venue for interpretation of little-read primary sources like court transcripts is a book or journal article, not an encyclopedia.
  - CPlatypus 15y ago
    Nobody's talking about interpretation. I was referring to mere verification that the source exists and says what it's claimed to. That can and should happen in an encyclopedia.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      That's not what he did. He synthesized from the primary sources text that contradicted the majority of all published sources on the incident, including what was up until then the most authoritative source. That obviously should not be happening in an encyclopedia. But let's be careful about wording. It obviously shouldn't happen in an encyclopedia. But it obviously should be happening. And it did. He went on to write an authoritative secondary source and the article is sure to reflect it.