Wikinfo talk:Importing articles
From Wikinfo
How difficult would it be to make a bot which would import WP articles, and update them if and only if they hadn't been edited on Wikinfo? NameToFollow 23:13, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
- It would be pretty easy. We are missing a lot of Pokemon articles. However, often an article is modified at the time it is imported which would make the modifications invisible. Fred 00:02, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
- Missing a lot more than Pokemon.... (: So the bot would need to be limited to articles after the date it started operation. And, we could make a sign for the bot, so that it would update an article if the sign were there. That would make it a human editorial decision. I don't have any idea how to make a bot though.
- Let's see, under SPOV article on Evolution would just fork with Creation science, but if you have OR in there, then the encyclopedia is not reliable. This is also partially corrected for with forking, but then don't you want a class of articles which are reliable? I'm just trying to understand how it could really work as an encyclopedia, with OR.
- If we are to be "WP with different policy," how do we really create a fact-checked encyclopedia? Perhaps tiers of articles, V1 allows OR, and V2 would be fact-checked/sourced? I think SPOV + forking is compatible with an encyclopedia, but OR isn't compatible with a reference source.
- I think your idea is basically better than WP, and I'd like to see it take over the lead. That's why I brought up the bot, and that's why I'm wondering about these ideas. NameToFollow 02:19, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
- We are committed to use of original research. Fred 08:57, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
- In every version of an article? If so, this can't ever be a real encyclopedia. Espc not for controversial issues. NameToFollow 17:42, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
And for that matter, how does one know about events in the future Considered "original research" at Wikipedia. British intelligence agreed, but not Wikipedia. Fred 19:59, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
- Ok, OR is often good. But shouldn't there be a policy that 1. the editors should say what works they are drawing from in their OR, and 2. that OR should be marked, and 3. that things should have attribution? I know that I wouldn't depend on WP for telling the truth, but how much less if there is not some way offered to discern where the knowledge is coming from? Could be Attribute OR?
- And what I'm wondering here basically is, we could have different levels of the same article. One attributed (even to OR), and with community consensus that is is a good (SPOV) article and generally right. And the other with all the things which people want to throw in. So you pick your level of attribution/reliability.
- Without ATT, you can't even find out whether you should believe it. NameToFollow 20:49, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
