|
 |
On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:35:48 +0200, nemesis
<nam### [at] nospam-gmail com> wrote:
>
> The problem I see is that wikipedia simply lacks common sense. Ok, so
> that's a encyclopedia thing.
Exactly. Encyclopedias are not about so called "common sense". They are
collections of verifiable facts, and as such must cite references to said
facts in order to maintain credibility.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that
is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has
already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is
true."
> The fact that you have to source someone saying:
[snipped list of perceived similarities]
> rather than simply lookup such info in the works themselves -- pretty
> much a part of popular "inconscient collective" by now -- doesn't sound
> credible.
There is no such info in the works themselves. Nowhere in either movie
does anyone discuss - or even point out - the similarities of the two.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by
a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B
can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C."
> Would the above newsgroups post serve as reference? A blog entry?
They would be considered to be sources of poor credibility at best, and
even that is under the assumption that you start with a phrase like "Some
people have noted similarities...".
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
"self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open
wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not
acceptable"
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
