3 ms·

My thoughts exactly... even if it's him, it's still both uncited and "original research". If Knuth put up a page on his website, he could then link to it on Wik

My thoughts exactly... even if it's him, it's still both uncited and "original research". If Knuth put up a page on his website, he could then link to it on Wikipedia and the edit would stick.

scythe 17y ago
Hell, the way things work these days, he could leave a comment on a popular news aggregator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_(programming_language)#cite_note-4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_(programming_language)#c... or even just a post on twitter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leave_This_Town#cite_note-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leave_This_Town#cite_note-1
asjo 17y ago
So basically the one person that knows the most about the subject at hand can not be trusted to edit wikipedia directly, but must go a longer roundabout way?
- mhansen 17y ago
  That's the policy. Because making exceptions for 'the one person who knows the most' doesn't scale.
  - asjo 17y ago
    That probably makes sense. They should remove the "wiki"-part of the name, though.
    - cema 17y ago
      Exactly! I think they have lost the way. And it has started affecting the project.
- bkovitz 17y ago
  Yes. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Without that policy, Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" policy could probably never have produced the best content site on the web. Just compare http://everything2.com/ http://everything2.com/

3 ms·

My thoughts exactly... even if it's him, it's still both uncited and "original research". If Knuth put up a page on his website, he could then link to it on Wik

by a-priori 17y ago

My thoughts exactly... even if it's him, it's still both uncited and "original research". If Knuth put up a page on his website, he could then link to it on Wikipedia and the edit would stick.

scythe 17y ago
Hell, the way things work these days, he could leave a comment on a popular news aggregator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_(programming_language)#cite_note-4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_(programming_language)#c... or even just a post on twitter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leave_This_Town#cite_note-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leave_This_Town#cite_note-1
asjo 17y ago
So basically the one person that knows the most about the subject at hand can not be trusted to edit wikipedia directly, but must go a longer roundabout way?
- mhansen 17y ago
  That's the policy. Because making exceptions for 'the one person who knows the most' doesn't scale.
  - asjo 17y ago
    That probably makes sense. They should remove the "wiki"-part of the name, though.
    - cema 17y ago
      Exactly! I think they have lost the way. And it has started affecting the project.
- bkovitz 17y ago
  Yes. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Without that policy, Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" policy could probably never have produced the best content site on the web. Just compare http://everything2.com/ http://everything2.com/