[okfn-discuss] effort to improve "open science" article on Wikipedia... also see citizendium

[Aaron Wolf]

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Gene Shackman <eval_gene at yahoo.com> wrote:

> So look for web projects that have good ways to show they are "credible",
> for example by following these guidelines from the Stanford University
> Credibility Project
> http://credibility.stanford.edu/guidelines/index.html
> like: use references, show that the authors have expertise, list the
> actual people who are behind the site, or work or paper etc.
>

Gene, as I said before, Wikipedia requires that everything be based on
credible sources. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

The guidelines there are as good as the Stanford guidelines and are a
cornerstone of how Wikipedia works.

I do not know why you are so anti-Wikipedia but it seems to be based on
lack of open-minded understanding.

Please do not take my arguments personally, I truly only mean to be
intellectually and rhetorically clear.

There are different goals in creating reliable standard definitions (like
the Open Definition), publishing original research, and editing Wikipedia.
When someone suggests work on Wikipedia, they are not suggesting that it
serve the purpose of the first two. Wikipedia is a reference compilation,
and is superb though imperfect at being that. Nobody suggests it is
anything more than that, so the *valid* reasons (in my opinion) to do work
outside of Wikipedia are when (A) you want to create something other than
reference / encyclopedic work or (B) you want to go into some topic that
isn't appropriate for Wikipedia's scope.

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20130913/53e0ce16/attachment.html>