In addition, in my view, adding specific citations can be misleading for widely believed/understood/known facts.
For instance, if I write that "Anthony Newcomb says that Alfonso Fontanelli was one of the foremost madrigalists of 16th century Italy", or in other words "Alfonso Fontanelli was one of the foremonst madrigalists of 16th century Italy<ref>Newcomb blah blah</ref>", that implies that other major scholars of music in 16th century Italy such as Alfred Einstein, do /not/ believe that Fontanelli was a foremost madrigalist, which isn't the case. It's widely thought that he was. It shouldn't need an inline citation, because all the major sources agree on it.
But since practically no-one on-wiki is an expert on 16th century Italian music, they insist on inline citations, so that someone could potentially go "check" that "fact". I think inline citations can be very important, but I don't think every single factual assertion in an article should have to have an inline citation, especially when an article really is simply echoing accepted non-controversial scholarship, such as, for instance, [[Dido and Aeneas]], which just received a GA review request for inline citations. It's getting ridiculous.
[[User:Makemi]]
On 9/29/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Peter Jacobi" peter_jacobi@gmx.net
In the unlikely case anyone interested has missed it: There are some troubles re mandatory in-line citing and science articles.
It all started with a warning put at large number of "good articles" that they will be delisted soon for lack of in-line cites. This immediately got the response, that standard textbooks facts are not and should not be in-line cited, the references section will name selected textbooks and one cannot judge the correctness without having some context anyway.
It is certainly foolish in many cases, and make-work, to reference specific and uncontroversial well-known facts. What is more it will tend to make articles unreadable, and effectively unwriteable also. This style is essentially only fit for very careful writing in doctoral dissertations with particularly terrifying examiners in mind.
It seems clear that enWP could get overrun by nutty lawyering types, if a firm line is not taken. Is there not a 'statute of limitations' of sorts appropriate? When a piece of science is over 50 years old, one expects to read about the details of the original papers in a historical article. And the chances are that there are so many textbook citations that picking just one isn't a great help to students.
Charles
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l