My name is Jake Waskett. I am a 34 year old man, living in England.
I am a computer software engineer, IT specialist, and web designer, an unashamed nerd, and a Linux user. I am fascinated by computer operating system design, and complex systems in general.
As of today (23 May 2012), I've been editing Wikipedia for about seven and a half years, and have made just over 17,000 edits.
These articles needed a friend, so I adopted them:
I intend to adopt these articles at some point:
I am interested in the medical aspects of this procedure. In 2003, I became aware of the misleading activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision. My research has continued and intensified since, and I now consider myself something of an expert on the subject. I've published several letters and articles on the subject in academic journals.
I am neither in favour of or against neonatal circumcision, but am opposed to misleading information. As the American Academy of Pediatrics states, "[t]o make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision." How nice to have an (unintentional) endorsement for NPOV and Verifiability!
I'm suitably honoured. :-) - Jakew 13:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Warning: the following is is neither policy nor guideline, though it is based upon both.
"But it cites sources" is a surprisingly common argument for using an unreliable source in Wikipedia, but it is not a valid argument for inclusion.
Anyone familiar with editing Wikipedia itself will know that misrepresentation of sources is a common problem. The fact that a source is cited is no guarantee that the source supports the claims made. Occasionally there is doubt about even the existence of a source. In the case of reliable sources, some of the qualities that make it reliable (checking by others, peer review processes in particular) help to guard against this. But in the case of an unreliable source (such as a random web page), there are no checks.
Furthermore, sources (both reliable and otherwise) are not bound by our prohibition against original research, so they may extrapolate far beyond their source material, and — again, because the source is not reliable — we cannot have any confidence that these extrapolations would be considered reasonable, or even sane, by experts in the field.
Thus, in a limited way, many web-based sources are actually less reliable than Wikipedia itself, since at least multiple editors watch Wikipedia and are able to verify additions (it should be noted, however, that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source). However, it may be worth retrieving each of the sources cited, to evaluate whether they can be cited instead.
Similar arguments (and made on the same day), but which is punchier? Which is concise? Which is more persuasive? I wish I had LeadSongDog's eloquence!
This is a Wikipedia
user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jakew. |
My name is Jake Waskett. I am a 34 year old man, living in England.
I am a computer software engineer, IT specialist, and web designer, an unashamed nerd, and a Linux user. I am fascinated by computer operating system design, and complex systems in general.
As of today (23 May 2012), I've been editing Wikipedia for about seven and a half years, and have made just over 17,000 edits.
These articles needed a friend, so I adopted them:
I intend to adopt these articles at some point:
I am interested in the medical aspects of this procedure. In 2003, I became aware of the misleading activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision. My research has continued and intensified since, and I now consider myself something of an expert on the subject. I've published several letters and articles on the subject in academic journals.
I am neither in favour of or against neonatal circumcision, but am opposed to misleading information. As the American Academy of Pediatrics states, "[t]o make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision." How nice to have an (unintentional) endorsement for NPOV and Verifiability!
I'm suitably honoured. :-) - Jakew 13:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Warning: the following is is neither policy nor guideline, though it is based upon both.
"But it cites sources" is a surprisingly common argument for using an unreliable source in Wikipedia, but it is not a valid argument for inclusion.
Anyone familiar with editing Wikipedia itself will know that misrepresentation of sources is a common problem. The fact that a source is cited is no guarantee that the source supports the claims made. Occasionally there is doubt about even the existence of a source. In the case of reliable sources, some of the qualities that make it reliable (checking by others, peer review processes in particular) help to guard against this. But in the case of an unreliable source (such as a random web page), there are no checks.
Furthermore, sources (both reliable and otherwise) are not bound by our prohibition against original research, so they may extrapolate far beyond their source material, and — again, because the source is not reliable — we cannot have any confidence that these extrapolations would be considered reasonable, or even sane, by experts in the field.
Thus, in a limited way, many web-based sources are actually less reliable than Wikipedia itself, since at least multiple editors watch Wikipedia and are able to verify additions (it should be noted, however, that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source). However, it may be worth retrieving each of the sources cited, to evaluate whether they can be cited instead.
Similar arguments (and made on the same day), but which is punchier? Which is concise? Which is more persuasive? I wish I had LeadSongDog's eloquence!
This is a Wikipedia
user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jakew. |