We need to set up a regular mechanism which analyzes and searches for errors. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Error_management
We need to make a science of it, Wikipedia:Error_management Fred > Gerard writes: >>The trouble is that attempts to make something that > lures experts but > keeps idiots out of their faces have so far failed and/or attracted no > attention, even from the experts (Citizendium, Scholarpedia). That is, > they sound like a good idea; but in practice, Wikipedia has so far > been the least worst system. > > True. But is there not some way of making Wikipedia just a little more > attractive > to people who have studied the subject? I used to propose things like > credentials > based on trust earned on Wikipedia (which would require getting trust > from other > trusted editors, much like in financial markets). These all naturally > got shot down, > and silly of me to have tried. But is there not some way of just making > it a little > easier? > > The problem is that until someone sits up and notices the serious errors > that > are propagated through Wikipedia (and which are now becoming part of the > folk wisdom of the internet), no one will be bothered. The problem is > that no one > *knows* there are problems, and so no one can be bothered. I've started > documenting > the problem in a small way, e.g. here > http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/william-of-ockham.html > and here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/avicennian-logic.html , but > this is only > in my own area of expertise. > > What is the very smallest thing that could be done, I wonder? > > Peter > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
