I’ll formulate it a few more ways for clarity’s sake.

• A reference list doesn’t establish credibility.
• More references does not equal more credibility.
• Anyone can add footnotes. To count them only provides statistics on how many footnotes there are.

You may not have read the article also linked to above in which I first mentioned the problem with this argument:
http://davidrothman.net/2007/03/27/same-excuses

This was linked in the post above thusly:

and this post from a little more than a week later.

I agree with you that Wikipedia should be the starting point for research of a medical topic, not the endpoint. However, after reading your article, my impression of the point you’re trying to make is that wiki information isn’t reliable because anyone can edit it. Is the argument here that a reference list doesn’t establish credibility or that, because Wikipedia is editable by anyone, there is a question regarding the reliability of the information presented?

“Second, I’d like to show you how Wikipedia is improving in the aspect of credibility.”

“Why do I say bravely that Wikipedia is improving in the aspect of credibility and reliability? As I tried to be objective, I chose some of the first entries in the List of causes of death by rate article and determined the number of references and external links in each article now and a year ago.”

Berci, you’re clearly, unquestionably correlating more citations with more credibility.

As noted above, you have made this argument repeatedly. Instead of defending the argument or revising it, you use straw men or accuse others of being unfair.

A greater number of citations is NOT evidence of greater reliability. You have repeatedly said that it is (this would be the very definition of a direct relationship). To point out the fallacy of this argument each time you make it is not semantic trickery.

If I put references into my article, then it is improving in the apsect of credibility. But not only the number of references decides whether an article is reliable or not.

If I said “because of the growing number of references, Wikipedia is reliable now, you would be right.

You put words into my mouth.

Just above, you wrote:

“I didn’t say Wikipedia is now reliable and credible. I only said it is improving in this aspect.”

This is again a straw man. I did not accuse you of saying that Wikipedia is now reliable and credible. I accused you of repeatedly arguing that there is a direct relationship between the number of citations in resource and the credibility of that resource. You DID say this in your post:

“Second, I’d like to show you how Wikipedia is improving in the aspect of credibility.”

“Why do I say bravely that Wikipedia is improving in the aspect of credibility and reliability? As I tried to be objective, I chose some of the first entries in the List of causes of death by rate article and determined the number of references and external links in each article now and a year ago.”

You’re inarguably saying that more references and more external links mean that Wikipedia’s medical information is more credible. You ARE equating references and external links with credibility.

You continue to do this even though you yourself have admitted the fallacious nature of this argument.

“For me, it proves that Wikipedia is still improving regarding the number of references”

And it is. I didn’t say Wikipedia is now reliable and credible. I only said it is improving in this aspect.

You should focus on my conclusion:

“Citizendium, the online encyclopaedia that only selected editors, professionals can edit, is, obviously, more reliable than Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is far more comprehensive than Citizendum. So both should serve as an additional source of information, but never as your last source…”