3 ms·
It isn't about explaining it better, it's about the fact people have a need to feel special and some people peg that specialness to having an article about Thei
by derleth 14y ago
It isn't about explaining it better, it's about the fact people have a need to feel special and some people peg that specialness to having an article about Their Thing on Wikipedia. Patiently explaining to them that, without external verification, there's no way to prevent them from simply making shit up is not going to reduce their sense of indignation when their unverifiable stuff is deleted.
- saurik 14y agoThe way these rules are currently set up does not solve this problem: you simply "make shit up" when talking to reporters and then let people reference the secondary source (which is usually designed to fact check information by simply calling you and asking "was this true", at which point you can easily just lie; more information on this in my upstream reply). You simply cannot use secondary sources to solve the problem you are describing, and if you tried to do so in an academic article you would find yourself unable to get published: you would simply find a note attached from peer review asking you to instead cite primary sources... as otherwise there is nothing to prevent you from "simply making shit up".