On 3/26/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/25/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/03/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Only the last part is problematic, why are we quoting blogs making allegations about somebody? Teresa Nielsen Hayden should be
specifically
identified in the text of the article, who she is, what her notability
is
for saying this, and her page wikilinked.
This is one of those things that is obvious if you're in the SF field
- i.e., the Nielsen-Haydens are highly respected editors, and their
blog is not your average blog any more than Groklaw is.
Just how far out of our way should we have to go to justify references to those ignorant of the field who still consider their proudly ignorant opinion is just as valid on AFD as that of someone who actually has half a clue what they're talking about?
- d.
Wikipedia is not a specialized encyclopedia with little subcultures limited to their own reading, it is a general encyclopedia, and as such, I should be able to read an article about a topic without knowing much about it, like who the insiders are, and who the major players are. This is, again, one of those things that folks fight against tooth and nail on FAC, but when they rewrite the articles for a general audience at my insistence (for the few unlucky ones whose articles I edit), they ALL agree the articles are better and more appropriate and more in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In addition this takes care of BLP issues. It takes care of a lot, most of all it makes Wikipedia in line with its goals: being a general encyclopedia.
This article is not written FOR readers of Science Fiction. It is written for users of Wikipedia.
KP
Google is your friend. Dropping any of the names in the article into a search engine or actually reading the linked pages tells a reader all they need to know to be expert enough to understand the sources were reliable. You don't need an expert.
Mgm