The myth of reference sources Options

[thekohser]

A recent study proves what most of us here knew all along. For all of the hype about how Wikipedia is more and more reliable thanks to the reference sources that pepper its articles, when it comes right down to it, even college students are oblivious to what the references are actually pointing to when they evaluate the credibility of a Wikipedia article.

(Thankfully, as a paid editor, I can sometimes use this to my advantage... puffing out references that are barely relevant to what is claimed in the article. But if that's what it takes to make the content stick, so be it.)

(It's also a nifty trick to get vandalism to hold in place.)

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 7th June 2011, 3:30pm

[Abd]

I just saw a reverse effect, where sourcing was inadequate to protect text against removal as "vandalism."

I'm watching Energy Catalyzer, obviously, and this IP edit was reverted by a bot as possible vandalism, and the IP was warned. A new editor reverted that, and then a user reverted again,, warning the new editor, using GLOO. Naughty, naughty.

I'd guess that the user was attracted by the bot tag automatically added, but did not check the source; the restored and removed edit is an exact quotation from the reliable source, I just checked.

Welcome to the future of Wikipedia, where no longer do you have to convince Randy from Boise of anything, you only have to convince a robot and a distracted and bored robot-enforcer, running an "assisted editing tool." Next step: auto-extermination of vandals, a script installs on their computer and blows up, terminating the problem. Don't You Dare Vandalize Wikipedia with strange-looking facts!

This post has been edited by Abd: Tue 7th June 2011, 7:23pm