David,
In the m:WikiBibliography draft proposal I have briefly tried to explain the
difference you allude to. Wikipedia is a project dedicated to synthesizing
every notable topic into an encyclopedia. Since Wikipedia doesn't contain
original research, eventually every statement there should be able to be
traced to its source. The opposite also holds true - eventually every
notable topic will be able to be traced back to Wikipedia. We don't
necessarily have to cite all sources that a topic is mentioned in within a
given article, but it is desirable to document the relationships between
these sources so that we understand the true context. These really are two
sides of the same problem, and the project proposal aims to cover both
sides.
Brian
ps: Once people top-post it makes it challenging to bottom post without
breaking thread continuity. Since I always top-post at work I don't mind
doing it, but I just wanted to note that I know it might irk some people:)
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:30 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
There's a difference between a project to
centralize the various
references in Wikipedia, and an attempt to build a universal
bibliographic database. The first is a reasonable project, though I
think everyone involved has underestimated the extent to which
normalization and manual aggregation will be needed.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for those links, John.
I agree that a separate project is needed to have a central source
that all language versions of all projects can reference. The
citations version of Commons.
I like the French model of using "Article name (Authors)" as a key.
Perhaps with "Article name (Authors, Year)" if needed to disambiguate.
This shares a design principle with the move away from CamelCase to
freeform article titles: one should be able to insert an article name
into a natural sentence, and link the appropriate section of the
sentence, and have it take you to the appropriate article.
To DGG's question: in the long run, the scope of "all cited works" can
be captured in such a project, at least for the works cited on a wiki
Project -- anyone making a new citation would either find it already
in the project or would add it. Whether this covers all works cited
by active academics of scholars depends on how effectively we draw
them into our community and help them see where an extra minute of
work on their part will help thousands of their readers, reviewers,
and reusers.
SJ.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:13 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Finn Aarup
Nielsen <fn(a)imm.dtu.dk>
wrote:
>>..
>> Do anyone knows anything about the French discussions on the
introduction
of
>> the 'Reference' namespace? Should
we just implement the French system
on the
>> English Wikipedia and we are there?
>
> This was discussed on en.wp in late 2007...
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29/Archive…
>
> The proposal on fr.wp in early 2006:
>
>
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Espace_r…
--
John Vandenberg
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l