On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a > must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn > what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original > Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years > until the article was actually published before trying to modify the > Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case > because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for > Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent > academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular > sources we rely on never undergo. > > I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy > itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy. > Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's judgement that was called for with the Haymarket article. Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l