5 ms·

It seems to me the problem is that people think there even exists such a thing as an authoritative source.

leephillips 12y ago
Really? What if we were debating where nollidge was born and where he went to school. Would you not be an authoritative source of information on these subjects?
- noIlidge 12y ago
  Even things as simple as identity can be tricky.
  - nollidge 12y ago
    I don't see why you have to impersonate me to make this point.
    - rectangletangle 12y ago
      Why are you impersonating noIlidge?
- r0muald 12y ago
  Not really. According to Wikipedia you are not an authoritative source on yourself, e.g. Philip Roth <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/philip-roth-wikipedia-_n_1865861.html> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/philip-roth-wikiped... and <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPSPS> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPSPS>
  - leephillips 12y ago
    I know. But Wikipedia's rules about authority only have bearing within their universe, and no bearing upon what is actually authoritative. Are you really saying that you are "not really" an authority about what you had for breakfast because Wikipedia wouldn't allow you to claim to be one?
    - nollidge 12y ago
      Yes, that is absolutely what I'm saying. Obviously not because it's Wikipedia's policy, but because all information is provisional. All information should be regarded with varying levels of confidence never approaching 100%. If you ask about my breakfast, I could be lying to you or recall yesterday's breakfast instead of today's or whatever.
    - stonemetal 12y ago
      Why would you be one? Maybe you don't know the difference between cilantro and parsley, but your omelet contained one of them. That mystery sausage in the back of your fridge that you ate and claimed was chorizo? Maybe the wait staff didn't like you so there was abnormally large amount of spit in your breakfast. Being Authoritative on your breakfast should only apply if you actually know what you ate, not just think you do.
    - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
      IIRC, one of the first public Wikipedia "scandals" involved a guy who was irate because his Wikipedia entry was wrong and he was told he wasn't allowed to edit it. Cue much hemming and hawing. Only the "wrong" was that it included "director" among a long list of accomplishments, on account of he had directed a film. The guy's beef was that he didn't like the film and didn't want to be noted for it, and he demanded sole authority over his own historical record. Sometimes there are good reasons to not let people edit their own articles. Sometimes there aren't. But you need some sort of coherent policy.
- nollidge 12y ago
  How would you know I'm telling you the truth?
  - leephillips 12y ago
    I wouldn't. Authorities can lie, and often have an agenda. But I can still cite you as an authority on things that you are an expert about. And if your lying ways become known, you will lose your reputation, and status as an authority who should be cited. If, however, you anonymously seed Wikipedia with lies, you have nothing to lose.

Really? What if we were debating where nollidge was born and where he went to school. Would you not be an authoritative source of information on these subjects?

noIlidge 12y ago
Even things as simple as identity can be tricky.
- nollidge 12y ago
  I don't see why you have to impersonate me to make this point.
  - rectangletangle 12y ago
    Why are you impersonating noIlidge?
r0muald 12y ago
Not really. According to Wikipedia you are not an authoritative source on yourself, e.g. Philip Roth <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/philip-roth-wikipedia-_n_1865861.html> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/philip-roth-wikiped... and <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPSPS> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPSPS>
- leephillips 12y ago
  I know. But Wikipedia's rules about authority only have bearing within their universe, and no bearing upon what is actually authoritative. Are you really saying that you are "not really" an authority about what you had for breakfast because Wikipedia wouldn't allow you to claim to be one?
  - nollidge 12y ago
    Yes, that is absolutely what I'm saying. Obviously not because it's Wikipedia's policy, but because all information is provisional. All information should be regarded with varying levels of confidence never approaching 100%. If you ask about my breakfast, I could be lying to you or recall yesterday's breakfast instead of today's or whatever.
  - stonemetal 12y ago
    Why would you be one? Maybe you don't know the difference between cilantro and parsley, but your omelet contained one of them. That mystery sausage in the back of your fridge that you ate and claimed was chorizo? Maybe the wait staff didn't like you so there was abnormally large amount of spit in your breakfast. Being Authoritative on your breakfast should only apply if you actually know what you ate, not just think you do.
  - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
    IIRC, one of the first public Wikipedia "scandals" involved a guy who was irate because his Wikipedia entry was wrong and he was told he wasn't allowed to edit it. Cue much hemming and hawing. Only the "wrong" was that it included "director" among a long list of accomplishments, on account of he had directed a film. The guy's beef was that he didn't like the film and didn't want to be noted for it, and he demanded sole authority over his own historical record. Sometimes there are good reasons to not let people edit their own articles. Sometimes there aren't. But you need some sort of coherent policy.
nollidge 12y ago
How would you know I'm telling you the truth?
- leephillips 12y ago
  I wouldn't. Authorities can lie, and often have an agenda. But I can still cite you as an authority on things that you are an expert about. And if your lying ways become known, you will lose your reputation, and status as an authority who should be cited. If, however, you anonymously seed Wikipedia with lies, you have nothing to lose.