Wikipedia talk:Editors will sometimes be wrong

Recommend changing the title from "Some editors will sometimes be wrong" to "Editors will sometimes be wrong". The doubling up of "some" isn't necessary and the alternate title reads better. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 17:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This essay simply dismisses our content policies and behavioral guidelines as inefficient, and promoters a vigilantism attitude to content disputes, by using WP:IAR as a bludgeon. In reading it, we can better understand the modus operandi of some editors, and may explain the recurring and unresolved problems with their behaviors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically, this essay is at odds with Five pillars. For example, ultimately, the goal of writing an authoritative encyclopedia is one that cannot be left to the arbitrary consensus of whichever editors decide to let their voices be known.  is simply at odds with the aims and methods of Wikipedia. I have not seen anywhere the claim that we want to be an "authoritative encyclopedia", rather, we are here to provide verifiable content that abides by  a neutral presentation of the subjects about which we write. Big difference. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You said the Five Pillars is at odds with the essay, and as an example you said you've not seen it anywhere stated that Wikipedia wants to be an "authoritative encyclopedia". In the second pillar of that five it asks that we cite "authoritative sources" whenever possible.


 * It's just an essay containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You can agree or disagree, like the header says. In my opinion, it's not particularly bad advice either. It qualifies when to ignore other editor's interpretation of safeharbors such as "consensus" as when they are being "tendentious" and "disruptive editors", ie. agenda driven. 50 agenda driven editors camped out at an article they have an invested interest in cannot "own" the article, claiming consensus. That micro-consensus is at odds with the greater consensus of Wikipedia as a whole, ie. the Five Pillars. It's not really ignoring all rules to ignore their internal-consensus. It's ignoring their micro-interpretation of the rules and enforcing greater macro-consensus rules like NPOV and RS, the greater consensus developed by the entire community.


 * The example in the article explains where what you called "vigilantism" is appropriate. An inherently unreliable source like the National Enquirer is wrong to use as a biographical source. It just is. 50 editors saying go ahead and use it is a drop in the bucket to the hundreds of editors who wrote WP:BLP. It's a false-consensus. That's 50 editors who "are sometimes wrong". IAR in this case is to ignore their false interpretation of the rules, ignore their rules and impose Wikipedia's as a whole.


 * All of that is in accord with WP:FIVE. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 02:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting example SA and you used, when it turned out the National Enquirer was the paper  that got it right on the major story of the last few weeks. DGG (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but what you called a poor choice of an example is what I would argue is the perfect example. The National Enquirer is inherently unreliable. Just because they got it right this time, or even many times, they often get it wrong. The inconsistency is what makes them unreliable. You can't rely on them to be right. The issue isn't whether National Enquirer is right. It's whether calling National Enquirer a reliable source is right. Calling National Enquirer a reliable source is wrong. It's the perfect example because you can't rely on it. 50 editors saying it's reliable because it just happens to be right this time around are wrong on what they're actually arguing -- National Enquirer, while right in that case, is wrongly claimed to be reliable, an entirely different matter. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 05:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Plus it's a BLP, with a higher standard if one wanted to invoke IAR or even the occasional exception to the rule. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The National Enquirer often gets stories right. It also often gets stories wrong. That kind of "hit-or-miss" reliability is one of the main reasons we do not consider it to be strictly reliable. Anyway, confirmation bias being what it is, we may tend to remember the times that the National Enquirer got things right more than when they got things wrong. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "By way of example, if fifty editors say that the National Enquirer is a reliable source for biographical information, that does not make it so, even if only one editor opposes them." How touchingly idealistic. :) While Nealparr and ScienceApologist are of course correct here, the Edwards issue has been taken as a complete vindication for the fifty who think the Enquirer is a reliable BLP source (because it sometimes prints things that turn out to be true!), and resounding proof of error for the 1 who thinks otherwise. Next time there's a 50 against 1, I can assure you that the 1 will be beat over the head mercilessly with the Edwards thing, and I'm not anxious to be the 1 in that equation again. MastCell Talk 17:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly do not mean that we should routinely start using the NE as a source for articles--and certainly not for BLP. I meant only to indicate that reliability is a question of degree, and has many exceptions. No source is totally reliable, and no source is totally unusable. Indeed, until their story was verified, i was using the endorsement of it by the London Times as an example of how that newspaper was not quite as reliable as it is generally considered. More to the immediate purpose, I doubt the  Guardian is quite  as reliable especially for medicine and science as it has been traditionally used here. . Sourcing takes judgment. DGG (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we're agreed there, and your judgement is excellent with regard to sources - didn't mean to imply otherwise. MastCell Talk 02:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, but I would say that NE is never a reliable source. If a second reputable source backs up the story that NE broke, it's really the second source that's our source, rather than NE. I didn't follow the John Edwards discussion on Wikipedia, so I don't know how that played out. But I would have worded it something like "Mainstream news sources picked up on a story first reported by the National Enquirer" or something like that. I don't see how there's ever a need to quote NE directly . Scratch that, what I mean is that I don't see how there's ever a need to treat NE as reliable. It may be necessary to quote NE in the vein of "the original story reported by the National Enquirer was..." but there's never a situation where it would be appropriate to post a story from NE without some other coverage beyond them. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 04:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)