On 2/27/07, T P t0m0p0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/26/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
T P wrote:
I despise the current FA practice that "everything needs an inline citation". Basically all you need to pass FA is a lot of citations.
Can we slay this myth once and for all? Sources are a quick and easy
way to get junked or lose FA status, but it's not all you need. My first real FA try ended up being twice as long as the article I was nominating because of the "brilliant prose" requirement - talk about subjective. I have no hard numbers, but I bet a lot more struggle due to that then because of inadequate sourcing.
This is an exaggeration, of course. What I really mean to say is that all "I" need to pass FA is a lot of citations (which I hate doing).
Believe me, if I had my way, a lot more articles would fail the "brilliant prose" requirement.
Adam
The problem with all our processes is that they cater to the lowest common denominator - be it the LCD of reader, or LCD of writer. (Of course, in a few cases, they cater to a very rarefied audience - I have in mind some science articles which are completely incomprehensible to anyone not familiar with the field.) The FA process demands citations because it assumes incompetence/bad faith on the part of the writer. Whether this is good or bad is subjective - I certainly don't mind it.
The trouble I have with the citation fetish is that it goes overboard. For example, let's say that I have two or three core sources for an article - webpages written by published and respected authors and experts in the field. Does it make sense to cite these pages for every little detail in the article, or does it make sense to collate them in one section titled as references? I would argue that it is the latter that matters, but the inline citation fetishists have succeeded in making the typical reading of our guidelines closer to the former. As Phil (I think) noted not too long ago, one article even has a footnote for the name of the article's subject! This only makes sense if the name is a disputable/unique detail (e.g. [[Jeff Ooi]] is always known as Jeff Ooi to most Malaysians, but his legal name is Ooi Chuan Aun, so it makes sense to provide a citation for the latter in the lead).
The problem with citations is that in attempting to prevent the LCD from corrupting the encyclopaedia, we've made ourselves lose sight of the purpose of [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:V]]. And that's terrible.
Johnleemk