[pphysch]

Part of the problem is that philosophically, Wikipedia wants to pretend that contributors are "thin" interfaces for pure knowledge. That there is a well-defined set of "reliable sources" and all contributors have to do is summarize and create hyperlinks to them.

Not surprising given the ~Objectivist philosophies of its creators.

[bawolff]

What's the alternative? Acknowledge that there is no Truth, and sit down and cry? That may be technically more correct, but i fail to see how one can build an encyclopedia under that view.

[pphysch]

An alternative is to admit that knowledge is social, and include a lot more data on who claims and interpretations are coming from. It should be a first class feature of such an encyclopedia that I can hover over any sentence/paragraph and immediately learn who is behind it, rather than herding cats with diffs and reference links.

"Wrong" interpretations are perfectly useful data as long as I know who is making it.

[bawolff]

I don't think i have ever had a problem figuring out which citation corresponds to which sentence.

Unless you mean which user added it? I fail to see what a potentially ephemeral pseudonom really tells me. Its not like you need to present a drivers license to edit wikipedia. Anyone can be anybody.

But even ignoring that, i suppose i just don't agree. Seems like one big exercise in the genetic fallacy. I want people to show their work, and have their encyclopedic writing work be evaluated on its merits. I'm mistrustful of systems that put stock in people's reputations over what they actually do.

[pphysch]

Yes, it requires contributors to have more skin in the game. Zero-cost contribution is the main reason why some topics on Wikipedia are outright disinformation "contributed" by special interest groups. And don't get me started on the "regulatory capture" of power users...