<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Why I Don&#8217;t Edit Wikipedia	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/11/17/why-i-dont-edit-wikipedia/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/11/17/why-i-dont-edit-wikipedia/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:07:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.6</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Edward McCall (@Red_0ak)		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/11/17/why-i-dont-edit-wikipedia/#comment-44160</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Edward McCall (@Red_0ak)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:07:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://gregladen.com/blog/?p=7430#comment-44160</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I share your first and second concern and I would like to add a fourth that I believe makes involvement with Wikipedia something I would have an issue with on a more ideological perspective. With a project like Wikipedia I think the purpose (and I’d argue even a duty) to try to get the correct information exists. If you hold yourself out to be a reliable source then you should do everything possible to attempt to be a reliable source. The principles that guide Wikipedia seem designed to make being reliable difficult and as such when Wikipedia is accurate it is only because there is no real disagreement on a topic.

If I am going to make this claim I should support it with something more than just my say so. As such I’d like to point at two principles of Wikipedia that I find objectionable. The first is the motto  &quot;verifiability not truth&quot; that is the foundation of Wikipedia editing. As long as something is said somewhere even if it is not the truth the fact that it was stated is sufficient to have it accepted as reliable by Wikipedia. I understand what they were aiming for since on contentious issues truth is possibly a subjective issue but I still find the principle unacceptable. To consider making the commitment to edit Wikipedia I would need to see verifiability AND truth as the motto. Truth does not have to be capital-T truth but could be defined as verifiability by a certain number of truly independent sources the number of which would be a function of the reliability of the sources and the degree of contention over the claim needing support.
The second principle I have serious concerns about is the preference for secondary sources over primary sources. 

Unlike the &quot;verifiability not truth&quot; I cannot even imagine why secondary sources would be consider superior to primary sources. By definition secondary sources will be at best as accurate as secondary sources and almost always less so. If a Wikipedia article is discussing efficacy of a specific drug to combat a disease rather than rely on the clinical studies directly Wikipedia editing guidelines would rather rely on a newspaper or magazine article that relied on those studies. There is absolutely no reason to do this. Primary sources are always the superior source and one should only rely on secondary sources when primary sources are too difficult to find. 

I can’t look past these two design flaws and when I add to these that I find the quality of the secondary sources they allow as reliable to often be of questionable quality and I find participating in a site like Wikipedia would be a disservice to truth. Why waste my time with something that is founded on principles I see as flawed and that opens up the entire project to manipulation?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I share your first and second concern and I would like to add a fourth that I believe makes involvement with Wikipedia something I would have an issue with on a more ideological perspective. With a project like Wikipedia I think the purpose (and I’d argue even a duty) to try to get the correct information exists. If you hold yourself out to be a reliable source then you should do everything possible to attempt to be a reliable source. The principles that guide Wikipedia seem designed to make being reliable difficult and as such when Wikipedia is accurate it is only because there is no real disagreement on a topic.</p>
<p>If I am going to make this claim I should support it with something more than just my say so. As such I’d like to point at two principles of Wikipedia that I find objectionable. The first is the motto  &#8220;verifiability not truth&#8221; that is the foundation of Wikipedia editing. As long as something is said somewhere even if it is not the truth the fact that it was stated is sufficient to have it accepted as reliable by Wikipedia. I understand what they were aiming for since on contentious issues truth is possibly a subjective issue but I still find the principle unacceptable. To consider making the commitment to edit Wikipedia I would need to see verifiability AND truth as the motto. Truth does not have to be capital-T truth but could be defined as verifiability by a certain number of truly independent sources the number of which would be a function of the reliability of the sources and the degree of contention over the claim needing support.<br />
The second principle I have serious concerns about is the preference for secondary sources over primary sources. </p>
<p>Unlike the &#8220;verifiability not truth&#8221; I cannot even imagine why secondary sources would be consider superior to primary sources. By definition secondary sources will be at best as accurate as secondary sources and almost always less so. If a Wikipedia article is discussing efficacy of a specific drug to combat a disease rather than rely on the clinical studies directly Wikipedia editing guidelines would rather rely on a newspaper or magazine article that relied on those studies. There is absolutely no reason to do this. Primary sources are always the superior source and one should only rely on secondary sources when primary sources are too difficult to find. </p>
<p>I can’t look past these two design flaws and when I add to these that I find the quality of the secondary sources they allow as reliable to often be of questionable quality and I find participating in a site like Wikipedia would be a disservice to truth. Why waste my time with something that is founded on principles I see as flawed and that opens up the entire project to manipulation?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jeremy		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/11/17/why-i-dont-edit-wikipedia/#comment-43669</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeremy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:51:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://gregladen.com/blog/?p=7430#comment-43669</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In regards to the first reason, I often edit mistakes I see, but I make a rule of never engaging in a debate if people disagree.  If I&#039;m asked to justify a change, I will, but if somebody thinks I&#039;m wrong, I don&#039;t think it&#039;s worth the effort to debate the issue.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In regards to the first reason, I often edit mistakes I see, but I make a rule of never engaging in a debate if people disagree.  If I&#8217;m asked to justify a change, I will, but if somebody thinks I&#8217;m wrong, I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s worth the effort to debate the issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
