In general citation is aimed not for peppering articles with facts but for giving specific and hopefully notable references.
In the question you've brought up, I would venture that careful judgment is the best rule. An author who insists on trying to insert his own work, which he believes disproves quantum mechanics but hasn't been taken up much by the wider community, into articles relating to quantum mechanics should probably be politely encouraged to stop. (this example is based on an actual case, by the way) It becomes a violation somewhere in between NOR and NPOV if done in that matter.
On the other hand, if the work is relevant, germane, and the intent is not seen as overly problematic, I can see no problem with it.
FF
On 11/19/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
My heart is warmed by the pleasent replies. :)
Regrding anti-expert bias, does anyone think verifiable experts should be allowed to cite themselves when editing wiki articles relating to their skills? I'm not sure what I think, but it seems an important question. I can definitely see it being a major step towards a citable, peer-reviewed journal level of quality.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 11/19/05, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/19/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
The academics at my uni think the wikipedia is mildly offensive, in the sense that they enjoy being paid to write books/journals/whathaveyou, and don't enjoy seeing amateurs giving it away for free. Because of this, and our noticable failings, students are penalised if they attempt to cite the wikipedia as a source at my uni.
I just now returned from an 8 hour seminar wherein we were repeatedly informed that free, non-governmental information on the internet is dubious at best, and should be avoided for anything other than commercial or general knowledge queries. Instead, the online university database was praised (it includes a subscription to britannica, btw ;)
Jack (Sam Spade)
Well, I'd've gotten penalized for citing Wikipedia too, but I'd also have gotten penalized for citing Britannica. However, various features of Wikipedia made it much better as a quick study aid than the more academically respectable references, and no one was ever the wiser. And it is good as a study aid -- but most university students I know *need* to be cautioned that not everything they read on the internet that looks legit is true. (I love Wikipedia, and I am an optimist, but, well...)
-Kat [[User:Mindspillage]] wannabe academic
-- "There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l