Carcharoth wrote: > And I > shudder to think of the duplicated effort in checking references. It > would be great if you could look through an article and see that 5 > people you trusted had ticked off most of the references as > "verified". Hmm, in my experience the majority of finds of inaccuracy in articles come from correlation with another article, or at least from some outside view raising a "that's odd" response. This discussion does raise a suspicion that we still operate a somewhat naive generic fact-checking approach: any page that is thoughtful about what we mean when we say "checking facts"? Of course there is one aspect relating to the way a cited reference may not support a fact as stated. But we do want something a bit smarter than "make-work" solutions for a site with many millions of references. I was discussing "over-checking" at the Cambridge meetup, where you don't so much check a single fact as surround it with other related facts, from other sources, and assess for consistency, as a way of bearing down on unreferenced claims, and that of course goes for things where you don't have the exact reference handy.
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
