On 7/19/06, Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/19/06, Mathias Schindler
<mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as over-referencing. There is no such thing as
"common knowledge" regarding encyclopedic content. If it feels "common
knowledge", it may be lacking relevancy at least in a certain context.
Actually there are times when leaving something as "common knowledge" is
better than providing a source. Recently there was a discussion at
[[Evolution]] about a statement to the effect that evolution was considered
to be responsible for the vast diversity of living things and whether to
source that statement. It's very easy to find someone who has said that,
but to source it to anyone in particular could be misleading because it
implies that there is some special relationship between the idea and the
source. If something is common knowledge it should only be sourced if the
sourcing helps to establist the origin or development of the idea. Just
sticking in a source at random can be misleading.
I think a better idea might be to make the general statement, but
source it to multiple sources. If it's common knowledge then there
will be plenty of sources saying the same thing; once you have enough
reliable sources repeating a claim, you can simply state it generally.
Jay.
I have a question about all of this. What about a case when you are
claiming something relatively complex about something related to the
current article but not the primary subject of that article, and you
have wikilinked to the term. If the claim (or series of related claims)
are explained and referenced at the article on that topic do you need to
reference them again? If an interested reader can still find the
references by following the link do they need to be reproduced locally?
Dalf