[PREV - WALK_AWAY]    [TOP]

CIRCULAR_REFERENCE

                                             August 26, 2010

  On wikipedia, we need to find
  references for what we're
  saying, or we may be accused      That "wrong" and "original" are
  of being wrong or original.       regarded as equivalent
                                    strikes me as a problem.

                                            WRONG_CONCENSUS


  A syndrome I've been
  worrying about lately:

  A typical method is to write what you think is
  correct, then attempt to find references later
  to back it up.

       You are unlikely to intentionally look
       for references to contradict what you're
       saying.

         Your bias may be bounded by the need for
         references, but it is not eliminated,
         provided you can select your references.

    There may be a long window during which
    dubious material remains up on wikipedia
    while you casually look for references.

    Someone in the print media world
    may read your article in the
    meantime, and repeat what you've
    said.  Web searches will turn it up
    easily, and then you can use it
    as a reference, even though it               Wikipedia is good enough
    should really be referencing you.            to want to consult, but
                                                 not respectable enough to
                                                 want to cite.









--------
[NEXT - WIKI_JARGON]