User talk:Kåre Fog/List of errors

I have now created this page on the subject "Error lists". In this preliminary version, it may somewhat look like an essay, but I hope that it will gradually become more exact, with more references. I have given only one example of a web page with an error list. More examples may be given; one example is the web page that I created myself, but others will have to refer to that, if they feel the need for it. A main reason for creating this page is that I want a general discussion of how to treat and refer to error lists in Wikipedia. I intend to make a Request for Comments on that. --Kåre Fog (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC Referring to error lists
Under what circumstances can error lists published on web pages be used as references in Wikipedia?

The idea behind error lists
What is meant by "error lists" is explained in the article. I specially refer to error lists which are published on the internet, and only there. Two examples of error lists are and. The idea is that a person who reads a controversial book (or sees a controversial film) will often ask: "Is this really true?". Also, a person who has read "The holy blood and the holy grail" may ask: "Is there really evidence that a crucial paragraph of the Gospel of Mark has been deleted in the canonized version?" Or a person who has seen "Jurassic Park" may wonder: "would this really be possible?" (e.g. could ancient DNA be extracted from a mosquito embedded in amber). The person may then be lucky to find an error list on the internet where the publication is treated page by page, or chapter by chapter, or minute by minute, and find an answer to exactly that issue which he asks about.

The conflict on error lists as references
The background for why I want a discussion of error lists as references, is that I wanted the Wikipedia article on Al Gore´s An Inconvenient Truth to include a reference to the error list that I have made concerning this film. It turned out, as seen in the discussion page there, that the other editors did not accept that.

Articles dealing with books and films do in principle touch on two issues: 1) the book as a social phenomenon - when was it published, how was it received, has it got any awards. 2) the substance matter of the book - a professional view on the book´s contents. Many articles have a paragraph titled "Criticism". This is usually a description of the criticism as a social phenomenon - was the book criticised by any `important´ persons? However, my interest is the facts treated by the book, i.e. the subject matter. "Is it true what the book says?" " In what way has it advanced our knowledge?"

There is usually a large bias towards the social phenomenon and away from the subject matter. This leads to the bizarre situation that the reference list of many articles is filled with dozens and dozens of newspaper articles, even though these are clearly of very low quality as to the subject matter.

If a Wikipedia user reads the article to seek the answer to his question "is this really true", he will too often be disappointed. The section Criticism tells just who criticised the book, and little else. But there may be a text saying "the very notable person XX criticised the book", and then a reference. That reference may sometimes have the character of a short error list. And then, that will be all the reader can get. That error list is probably not the best or most useful error list, and it may be very seriously flawed. But the reader may not be aware of that, and he may be misled. The most valuable error lists may often have been produced by persons who are not particularly notable (because professors and Nobel laureates are far too busy to produce such lists - it is quite time-consuming to produce them). And the lists will usually not have been printed; nobody wants to buy a book that is an error list, and people want to find the answer directly by searching on the net, not by going to a bookstore. Wikipedia has the policy of NOR (no original research) stated for instance like this: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments and ideas. And any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Unfortunately, this rule is interpreted so as to encompass error lists.

In the discussion on the "An Inconvenient Truth" talk page, it has emerged as the general opinion that:
 * 1) an error list or private web page may after all be used as a reference if the author is a notable person.
 * 2) one may write "XX wrote an analysis . . " and then, to support this statement, the error list that was written by this person may be used as a reference, even though the person is not notable.

These two points, once more, illustrate that most editors conceive the article as something describing the social phenomenon, rather than the subject matter. I, being interested in the subject matter, reject the idea that a notable person is more right just because he is notable. And I dislike the idea that you can sneak in the reference that you want if you describe the social process ((XX did something), but not if you want to refer directly to the subject matter.

I suggest therefore that in articles on controversial books, there is 1) a section on the social process related to the book, and 2) a section on the subject matter of the book. And I suggest that in this latter section, error lists are accepted as references, under certain circumstances.

Under what circumstances? There are two possibilities: 1) error lists are only accepted if they appear to be trustworthy, reliable, neutral and objective. 2) error lists which are obviously produced to support one side of a conflict may be included, provided that other error lists supporting the other side are also included. In the books that I have dealt with (The Skeptical Environmentalist and An inconvenient Truth) there exist error lists from both sides.

As to 1): Whether an error list can be judged reliable or at least informative can be decided by the wiki editing process. The editors inspect the link and judge if it is sufficiently informative to be included. The consensus that will ultimately be reached will ensure the required quality of the reference list.

Wikipedia has an editing talk page here dealing with related issues. It discusses whether a compilation of evidence is a primary or a secondary source. I definitely think that a compilation, such as an error list, is a secondary source, and that therefore it is not encompassed by the concept "Original research".

I hope that when you think my arguments over, you find that under certain circumstances, error lists are useful references that will improve the quality and usefulness of Wikipedia. So I pledge for a change in policy where error lists, under certain specified conditions, are exempted from the NOR rule.

Error lists produced directly on Wikipedia
It is hard to produce an error list. You have to find information on a vast range of facts. And often there will be no single person who has an overview over all that. Therefore, it would be a good idea to produce error lists directly on Wikipedia. Let´s say we establish a section of Wikipedia called "Error check" or something similar. As a user, you enter error check and search for your book. Then, you find such an article. Here, a lot of editors discuss alleged errors and controversial issues. They may be arranged in page order, chapter by chapter. You go to the relevant page in the book, and see if your problem is treated there. If not, you may make an edit with a request that the problem be treated there. If yes, then you read a concensus on your question, a consensus that has arisen by a wiki process.

I guess that there is a demand for this - a demand which is by now not covered - and that is why I have just briefly touched on this possibility in the article. --Kåre Fog (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Remark to request to have the article removed
I have removed the request to have the article removed. The most important reason why I wanted to make the article, is that I considered that to be the best possibility to discuss the subject, which deals with the criterion "original research". And what happens? Somebody wants to remove it because it is allegedly "original research". I do not mind having the article changed or edited, but I do mind very much that by deleting it you remove the possibility to discuss the use or abuse of the criterion "original research". I want to discuss this issue, and somebody says that I am not allowed to discuss it because the discussion itself is "original issue". Conclusion: whatever I do, it is absolutely always wrong. You write "Welcome to Wikipedia." I certainly do not feel welcome. I feel persecuted, despised and treated unfairly. I have yet to experience how it feels to be fairly treated and taken seriously. Please treat newcomers better if you want them to stay and contribute. --Kåre Fog (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You want "to discuss this issue". I am sorry but Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Please take your discussion elsewhere. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * this is certainly a place to discuss this issue. The question is to what extent error lists can be used as references in Wikipedia, and that can be discussed only in Wikipedia.
 * I apologize for my initial anger, but the suggestion was very frustrating to me.

--Kåre Fog (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This article seems more like a personal view than a summary of published opinions
I sympathize with the person who proposed this article for deletion. Per WP:SYN we are not supposed to put together different opinions found externally. We quote the sources and we summarize them. Also, per Avoid neologisms we expect that, if someone proposes X as an article subject, there is a single common meaning of X that is widely used in the external world to mean the same thing. This doesn't seem to be the case here. The closest concept I can come up with is Errata but that's a technical term of publishers, nothing like what this article is trying to cover. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply: I have now rewritten the whole article, to make it less like an essay and more like a list of facts. I hope it has become more evident that the concept `error list´, in the sense used here, is a distinct and mostly new phenomenon, and that error lists, whether biased or not, constitute a special type of sources. I also hope that the article has thereby gained so much general interest that it can be kept.

--Kåre Fog (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that the article now has 19 references. But in a a quick look I did not see any of the references using the term 'error list.' So I'm afraid the requirements of Avoid neologisms have not been met. The term 'error list' seems to be the preferred term of Kåre but is not used by the sources he cites. To confirm that this phrase is not widely used for the sense you give here, Google for "error list" (with double quotes) and look at the first page of results. EdJohnston (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right. I tried that already. You get thousands of hits dealing with computer programs. If you type instead "List of errors", you get some relevant hits. I have considered that the two terms were practically the same; I would not mind a change to "list of errors". Alternatively one could be redirected to the other. In any case, I simply wanted something to call the phenomenon.

--Kåre Fog (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, I have used the term "error catalogue" myself on a web page. But when I search google, I seem to be the only one who has used that term.

--Kåre Fog (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Move this to user space or delete?
I've noticed that this was moved to user space already and that a deletion tag was already put on this. I really think an AfD is in order here unless you want to move this into your user space. Also, I don't want you to feel like I'm picking on you, I just don't think that this belonged at Talk:An Inconvenient Truth and I don't think it belongs here either. Nobody is going to see it here so any consensus reached here will be virtually meaningless. What you're trying to do is effect a change in policy and the place to do that is Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This page should definitely not be in Wikipedia space. As of this moment it is called List of errors. I suggest that, unless Kåre wants to move it back to his own User space, someone should nominate it for WP:MFD. EdJohnston (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)