Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/17/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
The level is not a problem. I tend to agree that there's no such thing as overciting, though I'm sure someone will eventually WP:POINT out an exception to that rule. As you say, the problem is more with the nature of the sources used. Much of the article is currently sourced to a web site called "Megalithic Walks" which is only attributed to "Graham and Angela" and which does not, itself, cite sources.
However, citing such amateur websites is perfectly fine -- it's basically one step above "citation needed" and tells other editors that it would be nice to have a more authoritative source for the claim (and also that it's OK to remove it if it is in dispute).
Yes, I feel that for a reader, knowing that the information that a given stone circle is 23 metres wide came from an amateur website is a hell of a lot more useful than just being told "this stone circle is 23 metres wide". However I still have two unresolved problems: a) How to elegantly express the fact that two different sources have contradicting accounts. Do I write: This stone circle is 23 [1] or 28 [2] metres wide, and ... or do I actually have to incorporate the metadata about the sources into the body: The size of the stone circle is reported differently in different accounts, as being either 23 [1] or 28 [2] metres... b) How to elegantly express the fact that I simply don't know something which is pertinent. Wikipedia does not have a narrator's voice. A newspaper might say "The Age was unable to determine the man's name", and a book or blog might simply use "I". I feel it's misleading to say "The origins of the rock are unknown" when surely someone *does* know them - but we (I) don't.
"Various sources give differing accounts..." and let NPOV (state all major viewpoints and let the reader sort it out) do the rest? :)