----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony" <wikim...@inbox.org> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:46 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Peter Damian ><peter.dam...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> But in certain areas it has not succeeded at all - philosophy in >> particular, >> and to a certain extent the humanities. The question is why is that so. >"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not >truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already >been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is >true." >In philosophy, as well as in the humanities, there's a lot of >information which is verifiable but not true (unless you're going to >define "a reliable source" as a source which doesn't contain false >information, anyway). How does that address my point that Wikipedia has not succeeded in certain areas? My criterion of success is that the philosophy articles should be well-written and should comprehensively reflect reliable sources. The problem is that they don't. I gave a list of problematic articles. Here is one of them again. http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/08/argumentum-ad-baculum.html Against reliable sources (any elementary logic textbook will do) will tell you that article is very wrong. So it is not verifiable. Give me any philosophy article at random and I will probably be able to find three bad mistakes. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
