5 ms·

I don't think that's what is meant by "go looking for the citation." I read it more as "by being an expert in this subject I know this is true; by being an exp

I don't think that's what is meant by "go looking for the citation." I read it more as "by being an expert in this subject I know this is true; by being an expert in this subject I also probably don't have time to find the journal that has the article in question, cite it per Wikipedia's rules, and put it in the article." Frankly that sounds like a great task for editors that aren't subject experts. Maybe the expert can say "this is missing knowledge, this is where I think a citation should be or what to look for" and the non-expert can do that.

ISL 13y ago
Will wikipedia accept a citation like: [1] Widely-known result, probably in Jackson's Electrodynamics as enough of a citation to placate the reversion police?
rhizome 13y ago
I read it more as "by being an expert in this subject I know this is true; by being an expert in this subject I also probably don't have time to find the journal that has the article in question, cite it per Wikipedia's rules, and put it in the article." Really, a "P.S. I'm an expert" policy?
- owenmarshall 13y ago
  Yes, I think you'll find that's explicitly what I'm advocating. Maybe there's some sort of verification. Maybe experts get limited to their subject area. Maybe we just have to (gasp) assume good faith on the part of the editor and trust that they are experts in what they claim. But I'd happily accept the edits of five "experts" if it means that someone that published with Erdos sticks around to edit. I completely understand if that's not what Wikipedia wants. But I also think it's the wrong decision.
- danpat 13y ago
  One of the great things about Wikipedia is the ability to follow citations and read the original material. To allow "expert opinion" without opening the floodgates to everyone with an opinion would require some kind of validation, which is probably as much, or more, work as citing sources.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Wikipedia could add a category of academic editors whose identities have been verified in some way with their institutions, and who meet some definition of subject area expert. These editors would be given a presumption of innocence by other editors, so their changes should be researched for citations, rather than reverted.
gnaritas 13y ago
> by being an expert in this subject I know this is true Anyone can make that claim; if not forced to cite sources, many will who aren't.
- hyperpape 13y ago
  Sure, and if the claim is actually controversial (someone says "I don't think that's true) we need higher standards. But I see stuff reverted without anyone willing to say "that sounds wrong".
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    I think it should be, no sources, no argument required to cut it. What can be asserted without evidence can be removed with discussion.
mjn 13y ago
If you do remember a journal article, it's perfectly fine to put in an incomplete citation with a note, and someone will fix it up. <ref>Einstein's paper on foo (FIXME: fill out this citation)</ref> or something is typically sufficient for someone to track it down. It's not sufficient to just say that you know it's true, though, for good reason; a lot of "common knowledge", even among scientists, is incorrectly or imprecisely remembered. Typically we are most reliable in our specific sub-specialty, where we actually will have no trouble coming up with sources off the top of our heads (in my very specific sub-sub-specialty, I could rattle off sources for almost anything without even needing to look them up). Outside our sub-specialty, we may remember some things but not 100% reliably, and often based on obsolete or incomplete knowledge (e.g. a course from university years ago) that someone familiar with the literature would be able to do a better job of covering. Hence the importance of referring directly to sources, not only to cite them, but to make sure the information is actually in those sources precisely as remembered. To me, "I know X is true, but I don't know where you can verify that" is a bit of a red flag, typical of e.g. something someone vaguely remembers from med-school or undergrad, rather than something they really have a solid handle on. In any case, as an academic myself, I find it weird that we, of all people, would find ourselves "too busy to reference" or something. That's an attitude one finds among students asked to write papers, but academics do not have problems peppering supporting references all over the place; it's basically second nature. Some academics even get in arguments with book publishers because the publisher always want to remove the "clutter" of too many citations and footnotes that intimidate the general reader...
lmkg 13y ago
> Frankly that sounds like a great task for editors that aren't subject experts. I disagree. Hunting citations doesn't take specialized knowledge, but it does take time. I doubt that the ratio of editors to article churn would sustain them being responsible for hunting citations. I think that's really the core of most issues with wikipedia: neither side has the time. Individual contributors don't have the dedicated time to comply with all quality-control policies themselves, and editors are spread too thin to provide any feedback beyond quoting chapter and verse.

ISL 13y ago

Will wikipedia accept a citation like: [1] Widely-known result, probably in Jackson's Electrodynamics as enough of a citation to placate the reversion police?

rhizome 13y ago

I read it more as "by being an expert in this subject I know this is true; by being an expert in this subject I also probably don't have time to find the journal that has the article in question, cite it per Wikipedia's rules, and put it in the article." Really, a "P.S. I'm an expert" policy?

owenmarshall 13y ago
Yes, I think you'll find that's explicitly what I'm advocating. Maybe there's some sort of verification. Maybe experts get limited to their subject area. Maybe we just have to (gasp) assume good faith on the part of the editor and trust that they are experts in what they claim. But I'd happily accept the edits of five "experts" if it means that someone that published with Erdos sticks around to edit. I completely understand if that's not what Wikipedia wants. But I also think it's the wrong decision.
danpat 13y ago
One of the great things about Wikipedia is the ability to follow citations and read the original material. To allow "expert opinion" without opening the floodgates to everyone with an opinion would require some kind of validation, which is probably as much, or more, work as citing sources.
nitrogen 13y ago
Wikipedia could add a category of academic editors whose identities have been verified in some way with their institutions, and who meet some definition of subject area expert. These editors would be given a presumption of innocence by other editors, so their changes should be researched for citations, rather than reverted.

gnaritas 13y ago

> by being an expert in this subject I know this is true Anyone can make that claim; if not forced to cite sources, many will who aren't.

hyperpape 13y ago
Sure, and if the claim is actually controversial (someone says "I don't think that's true) we need higher standards. But I see stuff reverted without anyone willing to say "that sounds wrong".
- gnaritas 13y ago
  I think it should be, no sources, no argument required to cut it. What can be asserted without evidence can be removed with discussion.

mjn 13y ago

If you do remember a journal article, it's perfectly fine to put in an incomplete citation with a note, and someone will fix it up. <ref>Einstein's paper on foo (FIXME: fill out this citation)</ref> or something is typically sufficient for someone to track it down. It's not sufficient to just say that you know it's true, though, for good reason; a lot of "common knowledge", even among scientists, is incorrectly or imprecisely remembered. Typically we are most reliable in our specific sub-specialty, where we actually will have no trouble coming up with sources off the top of our heads (in my very specific sub-sub-specialty, I could rattle off sources for almost anything without even needing to look them up). Outside our sub-specialty, we may remember some things but not 100% reliably, and often based on obsolete or incomplete knowledge (e.g. a course from university years ago) that someone familiar with the literature would be able to do a better job of covering. Hence the importance of referring directly to sources, not only to cite them, but to make sure the information is actually in those sources precisely as remembered. To me, "I know X is true, but I don't know where you can verify that" is a bit of a red flag, typical of e.g. something someone vaguely remembers from med-school or undergrad, rather than something they really have a solid handle on. In any case, as an academic myself, I find it weird that we, of all people, would find ourselves "too busy to reference" or something. That's an attitude one finds among students asked to write papers, but academics do not have problems peppering supporting references all over the place; it's basically second nature. Some academics even get in arguments with book publishers because the publisher always want to remove the "clutter" of too many citations and footnotes that intimidate the general reader...

lmkg 13y ago

> Frankly that sounds like a great task for editors that aren't subject experts. I disagree. Hunting citations doesn't take specialized knowledge, but it does take time. I doubt that the ratio of editors to article churn would sustain them being responsible for hunting citations. I think that's really the core of most issues with wikipedia: neither side has the time. Individual contributors don't have the dedicated time to comply with all quality-control policies themselves, and editors are spread too thin to provide any feedback beyond quoting chapter and verse.