Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Wikipedia says author not acceptable source for his own work


Recently, we’ve run stories about scholars complaining that Wikipedia’s highly motivated ignoramuses trash their work (here and here, for example), and it’s no surprise that factual information about ID theory is dead in the water. More recently, author Philip Roth notes in “An Open Letter to Wikipedia” (New Yorker, September 7, 2012),

I am Philip Roth. I had reason recently to read for the first time the Wikipedia entry discussing my novel “The Human Stain.” The entry contains a serious misstatement that I would like to ask to have removed. This item entered Wikipedia not from the world of truthfulness but from the babble of literary gossip—there is no truth in it at all.

Yet when, through an official interlocutor, I recently petitioned Wikipedia to delete this misstatement, along with two others, my interlocutor was told by the “English Wikipedia Administrator”—in a letter dated August 25th and addressed to my interlocutor—that I, Roth, was not a credible source: “I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work,” writes the Wikipedia Administrator—“but we require secondary sources.” More.

Just another reason why the News desk here rarely or never uses Wikipedia as a source.

If we need Orwellian info, we can just read Nineteen Eighty Four.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Now that's funny. The author of the book himself is not a credible source! Although most people hopefully realize it is not realize a credible source, it is so readily accessible that I'm sure it is used far too often. But this is really funny! Thanks for the post! tjguy
Well wikipedia openly admits that it is not a crdible source for information: Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2] This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time. Joe
Welcome back, News. Upright BiPed
What you've just described is Wikipedia policy, and, in fact, what they did in this case. wd400
If you think R. is not a reliable source re his own work, wd400, one could cite him and another knowledgeable and credible source, but then thesystem cannot be troll run. News
As long as you understand what you are getting
many times neo-Darwinists will try to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source for information, yet the fact is that Wikipedia is not reliable as a source for information, especially when it comes to the Intelligent Design/Evolution debate:
Wikipedia's Tyranny of the Unemployed - David Klinghoffer - June 24, 2012 Excerpt: PLoS One has a highly technical study out of editing patterns on Wikipedia. This is of special interest to us because Wikipedia's articles on anything to do with intelligent design are replete with errors and lies, which the online encyclopedia's volunteer editors are vigilant about maintaining against all efforts to set the record straight. You simply can never outlast these folks. They have nothing better to do with their time and will always erase your attempted correction and reinstate the bogus claim, with lightning speed over and over again. ,,, on Wikipedia, "fact" is established by the party with the free time that's required to wear down everyone else and exhaust them into submission. The search for truth (on wikipedia) yields to a tyranny of the unemployed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/wikipedias_tyra061281.html
The unfair bias against ID, many times, will even extend down into peer review itself. The following podcast is very informative for exposing that 'systematic bias' within peer review:
"The Problem With Peer-Review" - Casey Luskin - February 2012 - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-02-28T10_10_16-08_00
There was even a peer-reviewed paper in a philosophy journal by a materialist/atheist that sought to ostracize, and limit the free speech of, a fellow materialist/atheist (Jerry Fodor) who had had the audacity, in public, to question the sufficiency of natural selection to be the true explanation for why all life on earth exists.
Darwinian Philosophy: "Darwinian Natural Selection is the Only Process that could Produce the Appearance of Purpose" - Casey Luskin - August, 2012 Excerpt: In any case, this tarring and feathering of Fodor is just the latest frustrated attempt by hardline Darwinians to discourage people from using design terminology. It’s a hopeless effort, because try as they might to impose speech codes on each another, they can’t change the fact that nature is infused with purpose, which readily lends itself to, as Rosenberg calls it “teleosemantics.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/blind_darwinian063311.html
But alas for neo-Darwinists, no matter how much materialists/atheists try to tell fellow materialist/atheist, such as Jerry Fodor, to ‘shut up’, even in peer review, they can never really scratch Fodor’s 'primal itch' that has him asking such searching, and probing, questions in the first place:
The Itch Atheists Can't Scratch - August 2012 Excerpt: Isn’t it odd that we have such a great longing for things that don’t exist? Nowhere else in our human experience has an “itch” so primal, so central to our humanity, developed without any correspondence to a real “scratch.” We’re hungry? We have food. We’re thirsty? We have water. We’re lonely? We have friends and family. But we need meaning, order, and wonder…and we have drugs to distract us from that need? It seems a bit wasteful of evolution to work so hard developing a complex need to match a phantom solution that never existed. http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/08/the-itch-atheists-cant-scratch.html "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." - C. S. Lewis (Mere Christianity, 136-137) Brooke Fraser- “C S Lewis Song” - music http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=DL6LPLNX
The plain fact of the matter is that Darwinian evolution is completely useless as a fruitful heuristic in science:
Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs. Philip S. Skell - (the late) Professor at Pennsylvania State University. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816
Apart from the fact Roth is really not a reliable source on this. What do you think wikipedia, or any other repository of knowledge, should do in cases like this? wd400
As long as an author is not the key source for his own work, it is not a reasonable policy. We understand what we are getting and think it is trash. News
An encyclopedia is normally used as a source of conventional wisdom, rather than of final truth. Wikipedia seems to be following that path. As long as you understand what you are getting, it's a reasonable policy. Neil Rickert

Leave a Reply