4 ms·
It's also a result of Wikipedia's insistence to provide a citation or reference for every single thing/claim. Turns out its easy to find a reference for anythi
by nolist_policy 3y ago
It's also a result of Wikipedia's insistence to provide a citation or reference for every single thing/claim.
Turns out its easy to find a reference for anything if you search long enough.
- fsflover 3y agoWhat do you suggest, not to provide a citation for every claim?
- entropicdrifter 3y agoI don't think they're arguing against the use of citations in general, but just pointing out that anyone with sufficient motivation acting in bad faith can find something official looking that seems to support their opinion. In other words, citations alone are insufficient
- fsckboy 3y ago> anyone with sufficient motivation acting in bad faith can find something official looking that seems to support their opinion you just summed up wikipedia on any political issue.
- zo1 3y agoHow about in-between: Not provide a citation until a claim is disputed, then go into a "let's weigh and vote on the citations that support A or B, and go with the one that has the most". My big problem and theory of what will be the downfall of Wikipedia: No Original Research.
- mardifoufs 3y agoThat would lead to levels of stone walling so extreme that no one would actually bother engaging. We already have that right now, with editors treating some articles like fiefdoms and being very combative to any change. Usually using pedantry or the revert rules. Imagine if you could just make any claim, and then there needs to be a process just to disprove it. Plus with the 3 revert rule it would basically turn the entire website into hell.