228
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 142:
Line 142: + + + + + +
Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability? (view source)
Revision as of 15:33, July 31, 2007
, 15:33, July 31, 2007→It's more than bias
Ultimately, there are only so many editors, and topics that don't catch the interest any of them will fall by the wayside, while those that do will reflect the bias of any editor undisciplined enough not to take a neutral stance. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
Ultimately, there are only so many editors, and topics that don't catch the interest any of them will fall by the wayside, while those that do will reflect the bias of any editor undisciplined enough not to take a neutral stance. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
:That's a very interesting argument. I'd like to add another dimension to it: I think that there is a lack of consensus on what content is appropriate for an article. We'll use two examples: first is the Global Warming article. To go along with the GW article is an article called "Global Warming Controversy." Now, with this organizational structure, the most coherent way to organize the data in these two articles would be to put information pertinent to Global Warming (such as scientific staistics, history of the topic, etc) in the main article. Since there is a separate "controversy" article, any contention on points brought up in the original article should be pointed out in the second article. The structure of the "controversy" article should mirror the structure of the original article so recursive referencing can be used.
:The problem is that people think that "having the last word" wins the argument, which is why we get inappropriate discussions in articles. If things could just be split up and referenced recursively to each other, then it would be an excellent source.
:A final thing to point out - most people using Wikipedia as a serious reference don't use the actual article. They might get a summary of the topic from that article, but the articles sources will always be the direct reference, which is why it's so important to correctly and wholly source articles. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:33, 31 July 2007 (EDT)