wikipedia

[anpefa1]

why do family related messages posted on rootschat appear on wikipedia tony

[Erato]

One of my RootsChat messages is cited as a source on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Franklin_Ware

[Kiltpin]

why do family related messages posted on rootschat appear on wikipedia tony

 

As a Wikipedia editor, I can tell you that the object of Wikipedia is not "Truth" (although that is very nice and desirable), but rather "Verifiability". Some newspapers (the Sun, The Sun on Sunday, The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday) are considered to be unreliable and cannot be used as sources. 

Normally a forum (such as this) would not be regarded as reliable, but if posts get locked after a certain amount of time, that increases the reliability. 

Regards 

Chas

[anpefa1]

in this day and age of online scams and fraud I am rather perturbed by this. T 

[Dundee]

What have online scams and fraud got to do with references cited on Wikipedia?

Debra 

[arthurk]

Normally a forum (such as this) would not be regarded as reliable, but if posts get locked after a certain amount of time, that increases the reliability. 

Do you mean posts that get 'pinned' rather than 'locked'? I thought the idea here was that threads remained open for ever so that they can be reactivated by new researchers; as far as I'm aware, 'locking' is for threads that become too long, too far off-topic, or too heated - none of which seems to me to guarantee reliability.

[Kiltpin]

Normally a forum (such as this) would not be regarded as reliable, but if posts get locked after a certain amount of time, that increases the reliability. 

Do you mean posts that get 'pinned' rather than 'locked'? I thought the idea here was that threads remained open for ever so that they can be reactivated by new researchers; as far as I'm aware, 'locking' is for threads that become too long, too far off-topic, or too heated - none of which seems to me to guarantee reliability.

 

Sorry, if I did not make myself clear. It was posts that I meant. Many forums allow modification of a post, by the author, for a limited length of time. It is often an automatic process. 7 Days, or 72 hours, or whatever after the post is made, then the "Modify" button disappears, or is greyed out. That type of forum is ideal as a source as it can no longer be modified. 

Regards 

Chas

[Kiltpin]

in this day and age of online scams and fraud I am rather perturbed by this. T

 

A little known "Wikifact" - There are many hundreds of automated bots scouring Wikipedia articles and their sources. Some look for sources which are advertising; some look for sources from dis-allowed publications; some look for irrelevant links; some look for self-publication; the list goes on and on.   

If a bot gets confused as to the legitimacy of a source, it is flagged up to a patroller. These are editors (such as myself), who then manually check the sources. A new page will have as many as 20 bots checking it, and then again every quarter. If the article is stable with no new edits, then the checks become yearly (sources get moved, removed, die). 

University students find it great fun to try and cheat Wikipedia. When discovered, the penalties are severe. The whole of Oxford University and all its Collages and ancillary Departments were banned from editing for 6 months. There were grovelling apologies to the Wikimedia Board, but the ban remained for the whole of the 6 months. They were told that a second infringement would incur a permanent ban. 

Regards 

Chas

[arthurk]

Sorry, if I did not make myself clear. It was posts that I meant. Many forums allow modification of a post, by the author, for a limited length of time. It is often an automatic process. 7 Days, or 72 hours, or whatever after the post is made, then the "Modify" button disappears, or is greyed out. That type of forum is ideal as a source as it can no longer be modified. 

Ah, I see what you mean, but isn't it rather ironic that Wikipedia - a site whose articles are permanently subject to amendment - prefers to use pages (or posts) which cannot be edited, even though there's no certainty that they're giving correct information? From what you say, it sounds as though "reliability" is more to do with the permanence of a link than the accuracy of its content.