Submission + - Authority from nothingness at Wikipedia
CurtMonash writes: ""Everybody knows" that Wikipedia shouldn't be regarded as an authoritative source on anything. Well, Tom Relly of Register makes a compelling case, by way of anecdote, that mainstream journalists don't know actually this. And that makes for an interesting circularity:
This phenomenon needs a name, and I am helpfully offering one: Circlesourcing. So how long will it now take for Wikipedia to have an entry of that name?"
- Wikipedia is full of claims that are sourceable in principle, but aren't actually sourced.
- Mainstream journalists use information from Wikipedia, even if it is not further sourced.
- Those very articles can be viewed as authoritative for Wikipedia's own sourcing purposes.
- Thus, unsourced information could, by virtue of having been placed in Wikipedia, grow to be regarded as authoritative by Wikipedia itself.
This phenomenon needs a name, and I am helpfully offering one: Circlesourcing. So how long will it now take for Wikipedia to have an entry of that name?"
