Brian wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Walter van Kalken wrote:
Brian wrote:
As Danny has repeatedly mentioned, normal
published textbooks,
including encyclopedias, have every single fact cited and checked
before the publisher will go on with printing the book. These
citations aren't made public, but they are done, nonetheless. Why
should we be any different? This doesn't necessarily mean putting
1000 sources in the reference section. There are other options we
can consider, or new ways of citing content online, that are
different from the methods used in printed books.
Like instead of having the references in and under the article have
a seperate page like a talk page? And we just make "notes" which
link to the references on that "references"page?
Well, I think
there are better options to consider. One post that was
made here that has been pretty much ignored is linked below. I talked
with brion about this, and he said that he thought it would be a big
step in the right direction, although we should consider this option
as more of a starting point for branching off ideas, rather than the
final way it should be:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-December/005312.html
I especially like the option to include "cited text" and
"paraphrase".
So, as his sample image shows, we can essentially cite every bit of an
article, thus becoming as sourced as any published book or
encyclopedia, but better!.. because our sources are public, whereas
with Britannica, you have to trust the word of the contributers (and
the typing/proofreading abilities of their staff). I'm not sure if I
like his "red box enclosing uncited text" scheme. Another possibility
using this method would be to lightly highlight text that is not
sourced in this way.
The page on which one chooses to put the quotes
is only an aesthetic
function. The important thing is that they are findable and public.
The purpose of citations is to give the reader the opportunity to
verify the data for himself. He can't do that if the citations are
not public.
Ec
Agreed completely. By working to have every bit of our text not only
cited, but to have their sources public, we would be moving beyond the
verifiability of other encyclopedias.
brian0918
Hoi,
And indeed, we would drive many people . I understand a wish for sources
but by putting red boxes and what have you around what has not been
sourced you make us into something what we are not. We would be as
expert as what Larry Sanger wants in his new project. Where is the
difference between Nupedia and Wikipedia ?
Have a separate page for your sources, have a talk page for discussion
but leave the text proper alone. If you want to keep Wikipedia
accessible this is the entry level where people are to be welcome. When
something is not sourced, it does not give you the right to delete
without prior verification. That is; you have to prove what is wrong as
in you have to assume the good faith of the contributor. When you do you
have the sources to prove your point you can change it like you always
could but you now do it with the conviction of having sources to back it
up.
At some stage there was a BIG row in the Dutch wikipedia; there was a
guy, who got banned and everything, who pushed a particular point of
view. He quoted sources. His sources were in a language where he was the
only one who could read it, it was in Tamazingh. His sources were
refused because of it and because of being extremely different from
accepted knowledge. Now given that history is written by the victor, and
given that this is particularly POV, having sources written by the
victor make many historical sources suspect. So how are you going to
square what you think you know about history an what can be "proven" by
English language sources and what can be "proven" by sources of a
different origin? By the way the Tamazingh POV was certainly not a
victors POV.
This blind rush into trusting sources.. Please think what you try to do
and be aware of the fall out. The attitude that only sourced information
is good
and reliable assumes no good faith. It assumes that a professional
approach is best. It makes us into a Nupedia where we were once open and
free.
Thanks,
GerardM