quiddity wrote
> The relevant line (that the template is attempting to summarize) is at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_page…
>
> * To avoid confusing the reader, each bulleted entry should, in almost
> every case, have only one ''navigable'' (blue) link. '''Do not
> wikilink any other words in the line''', for example:
> ** [[Dark Star (song)|"Dark Star" (song)]], by the Grateful Dead<!--
> note: it is not necessary to repeat the word "song" in the description
> as per "keep description to a minimum" below. -->
> ** '''not:''' [[Dark Star (song)|"Dark Star" (song)]], a [[song]] by
> the [[psychedelic]] [[rock band]] [[The Grateful Dead]]
>
>
> {{sofixit}} if you think it is wrong.
Thank you for quoting that. It is of course from a discussion page with 37 archived versions, and I have edited the page nonetheless. Here
'''Do not wikilink any other words in the line'''
is simply wrong advice in some cases. And there is no need to '''shout''' by bolding it.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
In a message dated 10/6/2008 10:01:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, toddmallen(a)gmail.com writes:
"If these are really important enough to be in the article,
why hasn't any other source reported on them besides you?" I think our
content policies still do quite well at preventing character
assassination or dirt digging here, but we should be careful not to
exclude well-sourced information while prohibiting such practices.
-----------------
Sure that was *an* attempt to scuttle research in primary sources. But after much back-and-forth, we finally settled on a characterization that allows both secondary and primary sources. This is especially true in the case where a particular subject has been opened up by a secondary source. So as an example:
Brad Pitt paid well over five million dollars for his house (People, "Brad Pitt Interview", 8 Apr 2003) County records show that he paid 5.4 millions (Land Records Office, Los Angeles County, Reel 52, page 203).
The issue where a primary source does not "clarify or add to" but rather contradicts a secondary source is a bit more touchy of course. In that case, we at Wikipedia, do the exact opposite of what source-based researchers do. That is, we ignore the primary source contradiction, and allow the secondary source statement without comment :)
Typically in source-based research, like biographies, you would do the exact opposite. But hey, I can live with it.
Will Johnson
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
In a message dated 10/6/2008 1:12:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
toddmallen(a)gmail.com writes:
go, or digging
through public records. If the details in question can be found at a
library (especially in 12 sources), this is simple research of the
unoriginal type-someone else already did the research.>>
---------------------
NOR does not cover "digging through public records". In fact, we allow
"digging through public records". This is not original research, this is
source-based research. Original research only covers "statements of fact" you have
generated in some way, originally, that is as the first originator. Not as
the second or later. A public record is the first published originator of any
"statement of fact" contained therein, and so, in using these, you are not
doing original research.
Will Johnson
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
quiddity wrote
> The thing is, we can't guess or know what a reader might be looking
> for, so we try to aid them /based on the title they arrived at/.
Well, actually the problem here seems to be that you have an idea about _how_ they will navigate and find something, and you are imposing it. And in fact you can't guess how navigational pages will be used, either.
> *If they arrived at the page [[Boll]], they were probably looking for
> something called "Boll".
> *If they were looking for the thing discovered by a guy named Boll, or
> for the nationality of a specific guy named Boll, then they can find
> that via his article.
>
> or
>
> *If someone wanted to find the article on "Calhoun County", but the
> only thing they could remember about the place was it contained a city
> named "Springfield", then they'll have to make an extra click to go
> along with their extra mental jump.
>
>
> So, Calhoun County and rhodopsin should not be wikilinked at those 2
> dab pages (According to our current guideline). This is with the
> intention of making the dab pages efficacious to use for the majority
> of readers (in all their diverse forms).
I think you completely missed the point of those examples.
And you miss a major point about being a wiki, which is that hyperlinking is made easy for a reason. It is not "efficacious" to have rules about linking like this. It is overly prescriptive.
The issue is fairly simple, I think, and has little to do with hypotheses about how pages could, should or would be used. About 90% of the time, anyway, excess bluelinks on a line in a dab page make it somewhat harder to read. So overlinking of that kind should be discouraged, and I quite agree with that. Making it a hard-and-fast rule, and not a guideline, is a bad idea.
It will probably not be long before someone decides a bot is needed to "enforce" this guideline, and purge links that are useful. Which would be ridiculous, in my view.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
I should of course have said that "Nor does not PRECLUDE digging through
public records".
In a message dated 10/6/2008 11:05:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
WJhonson(a)aol.com writes:
NOR does not cover "digging through public records".
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
quiddity wrote
> Allwiki is one extreme, plain-unlinked-text is the other - we each
> decide individually where we fall in between.
> I'm not trying to "convince" you of anything!
The trouble is ... the "where" should largely be regulated by common sense. In fact, both by good sense, and the communal sense we have of what we're trying to do. Guidelines should help with this, not be a hindrance and certainly not a reason to hide behind "this has been decided". Judging by my recent experiences, at CfD, and with dab page and redirect issues, the pendulum has swung away from common sense to people's personal theories being given full rein and a rather spurious status. We get told "that is not useful, this would be", but on flimsy grounds.
I feel the editing message is shoving that attitude down our throats.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
In a message dated 10/5/2008 1:14:04 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
toddmallen(a)gmail.com writes:
NOR covers "no investigative journalism".>>
----------------------------------------
I wouldn't quite go this far.
If the Wikipedia editor as an "investigate journalist" actually interviews
someone, that would be Original Research.
However if the "investigative journalist" goes to the library and look's the
subject up in 12 other sources, that would not be Original Research. And
yet still that journalist might uncover unsavory details from the past or
present, not yet included in the article.
It would really depend on how the term "investigative" is being defined.
Will Johnson
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
In a message dated 10/1/2008 2:30:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
szilagyi(a)gmail.com writes:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/
Oh yes here it is.
"The Journal never changed its stance. But last week, the editorial finally
saw the light of day at _Forbes_
(http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/09/23/naked-shorting-trades-oped-cx_pb_…) - after Byrne added a few
paragraphs explaining that naked shorting had hastened what could turn out to be
the biggest financial crisis since The Great Depression."
Now what? Evidently he isn't insane or a crack-pot too much anymore.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
As if conclusive proof were needed, [[Holodomor]] comes under "Disaster management".
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
_________________________________________________________________
Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354033/direct/01/