On 14 February 2012 06:02, David Richfield <davidrichfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Relevant: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haymarket_affair#.22No_Evidence.22 > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haymarket_affair#Dubious
As with so many cases, causing a stink gets the giant searchlight directed on the article, and things get worked out... it's just a pity it doesn't scale well! This followup may be of some interest: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/does-wikipedia-have-an-accuracy-problem/253216/ I particularly liked this comment: "Digging into Wikipedia's logs on the changes, it's clear that the entry's gatekeepers did not handle the situation optimally, chiding Messer-Kruse for his manners and not incorporating the new research into the article, even as a minority viewpoint. But it's also worth noting that the expectation that Wikipedia would quickly reflect such a dramatic change in a well-known historical narrative is a very, very high bar. (...) we hold this massive experiment in collaborative knowledge to a standard that is higher than any other source. We don't want Wikipedia to be just as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica: We want it to have 55 times as many entries, present contentious debates fairly, and reflect brand new scholarly research, all while being edited and overseen primarily by volunteers." -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l