[Wikipedia-l] Cite your sources?

[Robert L Frasier]

Quoting Axel Boldt <axelboldt at yahoo.com>:

> 
> --- Vicki Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org> wrote:
> 
> > In general, I think this is a good use for Talk pages.
> 
> I disagree: sources are a vital part of the article and should not be
> hidden away in an area that most readers will never find. I think of
> Talk as short term discussions aimed at improving an article, not as a
> depository of meta information. If all Talk pages are deleted
> tomorrow,
> the encyclopedia should  still be self-contained and complete.
> 
> Sources are extremely useful information; it's impossible to evaluate
> material without sources. Why would we possibly hide that information
> from readers?
> 
> Axel

I tend to agree - 

It seems that the bottom line is who are your users (or who would you like them
to be) and the goals of wikipedia. If I know that Axel does impeccable research
and in an expert in the field of biometrics, then I may be satisfied - but the
casual user or the user that comes in via Google doesn't know Axel & may not be
able to evaluate/use the information. 

If you want wikipedia to be primarily a source for information on popular
culture  - (and there is nothing wrong with that) - then you probably don't need
a lot of sources - that information is readily available from a variety of
sources. If you want any kind of scholarly (perhaps credible is a better word)
reputation then you have to give sources - 

It's hard for me to get excited about the particular format - so long as I can
find the source. 

Plus - there are contributors who take it as a personal insult to be asked for
sources - perhaps if it were a general requirement, some of the ruffled feathers
syndrome might be avoided. 

bob