[gmgmgmgmgm]

That's disallowed on Wikipedia. There, you must reference some "source". That "source" doesn't need to be reliable or correct, it just needs to be some random website that's not the actual person. First sources are disallowed.

[bombela]

I learned this when I tried correcting the wikipedia page on Docker. I literally wrote the first prototype. But this wasn't enough source for wikipedia. And to this day the English page is still not truthfull (interestingly enough, the french version is closer to the truth).

[nerdponx]

You could publish a little webpage called "An historical note about the Docker prototype" under your own name, which you could then cite on Wikipedia.

I think it makes perfect sense as a general and strict policy for an encyclopedia. It would simply be too hard to audit every case to check if it's someone like you, or a crank.

[bombela]

Maybe I should write the story as a comment on hacker news, and link to it ;)

Joke aside, I should probably take up on your advice.

[a1369209993]

Yes. Do this (make sure it's not a top-level submission) and cite the HN comment specifically. Stupid rules deserve stupid compliance.

[nerdponx]

Why would a top-level submission not be valid on Wikipedia?

[a1369209993]

It (presumably) would; the problem is that it could be considered more dignified and academically respectable than a random forum comment.

[andrewf]

That may fall afoul of the "reputably published" requirement at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...

Basically, Wikipedia wants a primary source's claims to be vetted by a third party, either a "reputable publisher" or a secondary source.

[nerdponx]

Doesn't that disqualify just about any personal blog as a source, or any academic preprint (like on Arxiv)? I can't imagine that's widely enforced.

[3836293648]

Well, stuff like the ArXiv is exactly what they don't want cited

[dTal]

I don't see how requiring someone to set up a little webpage filters out cranks. If anything I might expect it to favor them.

[nerdponx]

The idea is that it's a separate, distinct source, which exists outside of and independently from the encyclopedia itself, and can be archived, mirrored, etc. Its veracity and usefulness can then be debated or discussed as needed.

[gmgmgmgmgm]

you'd have to publish under another name. reference to the author's blog is also disallowed

[kibwen]

And that's for good reason. Encyclopedias are supposed to be tertiary sources, not primary sources. Having an explicit cited reference makes it easier to judge the veracity of a statement compared to digging through the page history to figure out if a line was added by a person who happens to be an expert.

[JadeNB]

> And that's for good reason. Encyclopedias are supposed to be tertiary sources, not primary sources. Having an explicit cited reference makes it easier to judge the veracity of a statement compared to digging through the page history to figure out if a line was added by a person who happens to be an expert.

But why is a reference to "[1] Blog post by XXX" (or, even worse, "[1] Blog post by YYY based on their tentative understanding of XXX") a more authoritative source than "[1] Added to Wikipedia personally by XXX"? Of course, Wikipedia potentially has no proof that the editor was actually XXX in the latter case; but they have even less proof that a blog post purporting to be by XXX actually is.

[kibwen]

> Wikipedia potentially has no proof that the editor was actually XXX in the latter case; but they have even less proof that a blog post purporting to be by XXX actually is.

Wikipedia is not an authoritative identity layer, it provides no proof of identity and is thus strictly weaker than any other proof you can come up with. If you don't trust any arbitrary website that Wikipedia cites, then you have no more reason to trust any arbitrary Wikipedia editor.

As for what tertiary sources are and why they prefer not to cite primary sources in the first place, Wikipedia goes over this in their own guidelines: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_resear...

[JadeNB]

> Wikipedia is not an authoritative identity layer, it provides no proof of identity and is thus strictly weaker than any other proof you can come up with. If you don't trust any arbitrary website that Wikipedia cites, then you have no more reason to trust any arbitrary Wikipedia editor.

It's the "strictly" with which I take issue. I certainly have no more reason to trust that a Wikipedia user whose username is BigImportantDude is actually a particular Big Important Dude than to trust the analogous fact about a blog post purporting to be authored by the Big Important Dude; but I dispute the fact that I should trust it less.

[msla]

And then there's impostors, which people who denigrate sourcing rules never seem to even think of.