The problem is that Wikipedia is not vandalism-'''proof'''; rather, it is vandalism-'''resilient''', and as a result of this, we can be quite ardent in demanding proof of an article's validity.
"If this Hazzan Kepecs is so notable", we say to ourselves, "should not his name have been mentioned by more people in more places? Could this not be a vanity article, such as children and the mad make to promote themselves, or a friendship article, like the well-meaning make to promote their friends?"
We look at the claims made in an article, and if they do not seem to match what we find in other places, we become wary of fraud - because fraud is sadly not absent from Wikipedia. Some do it out of malicious glee in their vandalism, others do it to further their argument that Wikipedia is inherently valueless... please do not assume that we have agendas other than trying to make this the best resource that we can.
All are welcome to contribute if they do so properly. If someone contributes to one of these debates, and he has never contributed to Wikipedia before, then once more we become suspicious. "Could this not,", we say to ourselves, "be merely a friend or relative of the article's creator, arguing on his behalf not out of any inherent value in the article, but merely out of personal loyalty or friendship?"
After all, a ten-year-old can create an article claiming that he is the strongest and fastest boy in all his school and that he will surely be President one day, and when we recommend that his article be deleted immediately as nonsense, his six best friends can instantly protest that he IS the strongest and fastest boy in all his school, and that he WILL surely be President one day, and everyone deserves the chance to know about him. They can even claim that they do not know him, but that his article has convinced them.
If such a statement in a deletion debate is someone's first and only contribution to Wikipedia, then we consider it as being of lesser merit than the same statement from someone who has participated for months. Even if someone signs their statements, we cannot know that they are who they claim to be - but if they register an account (and why not; it's free, after all), then their every contribution to Wikipedia is recorded and made available to all, and we can then judge their worth.
If someone makes an account, and uses it to insert the word "poop" into the name of every member of Congress, then we know to discount their statements.
If someone makes an account, and uses it to create many exquisitely detailed but false articles about wars that never happened between nations that never existed, then we know to discount their statements.
If someone makes an account, and uses it to say that such-and-such an article must not be deleted - and does nothing else - then how are we to know whether they are trustworthy? The answer is that we cannot.
I can claim to be a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Catholic, a man, a woman, an exceptionally bright child, a chemist, a rabbi, a surgeon, a pilot, a soldier, a tailor, a chef, a lawyer, black, white, or jaundiced from gradual liver failure, but these cannot be proven and are not relevant to the trustworthiness of my statements in these debates. What is relevant is that I am the Wikipedia contributor with the username DragonflySixtyseven, and every one of my contributions can be examined for value.
I hope that I have made my point clear to those who support this article but have not yet proven themselves.
Attribution to User:DragonFlySixtySeven
No comments:
Post a Comment