Here's part of what I mean: I. There's a List of notable Xs. that these are in fact notable Xs is demonstrated implicitly by the very sort of links you mention, because they all have linked WP articles. But frequently at AfD there's a demand that each individual item in the list also be shown to be notable by a specific link to some source or other. This is unnecessary, unless it is non-obvious that it is notable for being an X, rather than something else. II. within articles, the links you mention don't work well, because they are not specific--it just says the subject of the other article is mentioned there, not that there is relevant information about it. such links are hyperlinks to provide related information, not to demonstrate evidence for something. This also holds with see also's. they mean related information, not information proving anything in particular.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the cut and paste comment in your e-mail. Nonetheless, I am sure that the only precedent there has ever been for citing information contained in another article is to link a [[relevant section of the sentence]] to the other article. The indirection of moving this information to the end of the article has no merit that I am aware of and is a slippery slope to practices that are clearly harmful.
I've taken note of this conversation and will compile a list of all offending links once our mysql server is done with an upgrade.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:57 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com
wrote:
And with such a method of citing, it'll be easy to catch them at it. At present they do it by cut and paste.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
This works in a peer reviewed system. As we've seen in this case,
however,
there is only accidental oversight and people will certainly take
advantage
of this to give an article in which they have a vested interest the
vestige
of authority.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:47 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
"as per the sources cited here" is exactly the way to do it-- the usual academic equivalent is "per X, and the references cited therein". Something should certainly be stated, not just be implied. This might be a good way of documenting lists, where the reasons for the individual items are in the articles on the items.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net
wrote:
Of course! What's unfortunate is that some people are more
comfortable
with hard rules than with reasonableness. There are times when
citing
another Wikipedia article is perfectly appropriate.
Citing a particular revision, perhaps - the live article is too
moving
a target. And it should only be done as a 'per the sources cited here' way - the Wikipedia article itself is not the reliable
source,
but perhaps it might be worthwhile on occasion to refer to the set
of
references in an article collectively.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l