I think most of us have had enough of this. If a dispute remains, please use
the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedure.
Fred
From: BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:51:15 +0100
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] primary and secondary sources
I
strongly disagree. The only cites should be good cites. Bad ones are
misleading and wasteful. A good cite is easy enough to make: one that
accurately describes the cited material and relates it to the
subjectmatter. This latest fuss was, at bottom, over attempts by some of
us to
transform a bad cite (a statement that a UN source said something that we
didn't know it said) into a good one (a statement that a secondary source
gave a figure and attributed it to a UN source).
Um, no. The cite said exactly that already. The latest fuss was, at the
bottom, over attempts to exclude the cite altogether because one editor
didn't like it. And even after it was confirmed as factually correct, he
still made several attempts to exclude it on other grounds.
Actually, the attempts that this "one editor" did, was to tell the
readers that the "cite" inserted did refer to something completely
different from what all the other "cites" referred to. Those attempts
were completely resisted
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estimates_of_the_Palestinian_Refu…
e_flight_of_1948&diff=9512567&oldid=9511977)
for some reason.
--
mvh Björn
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l