3 ms·
It would be useful to have a site that logs all plausible issues of this kind, at arm's length from Wikipedia editors. Kind of a "Who watches the watchers?" ty
by mistermann 2y ago
It would be useful to have a site that logs all plausible issues of this kind, at arm's length from Wikipedia editors.
Kind of a "Who watches the watchers?" type of thing.
- squigz 2y agoWhy would that not be prone to the same issue you think Wikipedia faces?
- mistermann 2y agoSuperior methodology (transcending numerous cultural / psychological / cognitive norms and obligations) is how I would go about it. For example: banning the conflation of opinion and fact, like what's going on (and always goes on) in this thread, a behavior that is protected (doing otherwise "is not what this site is for"). If an imperfection is noted: log it, investigate, improve. Rinse, repeat. Also: best prepare one's will, life insurance, etc before undertaking such a project.
- zelphirkalt 2y agoMaybe it would not, but putting all your eggs in one basket has never been a good idea either.
- squigz 2y agoI don't think that's what we're doing, considering Wikipedia points to other 'baskets' as sources.
- LikesPwsh 2y agoIf that list became popular it would be weaponised by military intelligence.