[Taxacom] Rubbish, lies and hate by academic fraud Wolfgang Wuster on Wikipedia!

Doug Yanega dyanega at ucr.edu
Wed Oct 9 11:39:23 CDT 2013

On 10/9/13 2:54 AM, Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman wrote:
> By  contrast we just had it from another correspondent here on taxacom that Wikipedia has no interest in factual accuracy whatsoever and that all they need is an IP address they can link to.
Here is the actual text of Wikipedia's official policy (from 

" Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability>, used to define 
the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "*verifiability, not 
truth*". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material 
added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable 
source <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES>. Editors may 
not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to 
be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply 
because they disagree with them.

The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" 
meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum 
requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a 
sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be 
appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative 
to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight 

Wikipedia's articles are intended as intelligent summaries and 
reflections of current published debate within the relevant fields, an 
overview of the relevant literature. The Verifiability policy is related 
to another core content policy, Neutral point of view 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view>, which 
holds that we include all significant views on a subject. Citing 
reliable sources for any material challenged or likely to be challenged 
gives readers the chance to check for themselves that the most 
appropriate sources have been used, and used well (see below 

That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean 
Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's 
reliance on rules of evidence 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_evidence> does not mean the 
court does not respect truth. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it 
/requires/ verifiability. Unlike some encyclopedias, Wikipedia does not 
try to impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they 
trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia. We empower our 
readers. We don't ask for their blind trust."

As someone who has personally made over 10,000 Wikipedia edits, and is 
intimately familiar with WP policy and its enforcement, the Raymond 
Hoser article there (which I had not read before today) is remarkably 
objective, fulfilling WP's policies on NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and 
Verifiability. There is not a single example of an ad hominem attack *by 
an editor* - all negative comments are quotations from published and 
cited sources, and the article even quotes Hoser's comments in his own 
defense. As such, there is no legitimate point of contention here, so 
far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. Mr. Hoser: It is ultimately 
irrelevant whether you feel personally offended by the low opinion the 
world has of you and your work; that low opinion is your own doing, not 
the result of any conspiracies against you, AND it is a matter of public 
record - a record that the WP article accurately reflects. If you don't 
want that to be your legacy, then maybe you should reconsider how and 
why you do things. Have you ever read "A Christmas Carol" by Dickens?


Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82

More information about the Taxacom mailing list