"Thomas Dalton" wrote
I'm not thinking about mathematics here. I am thinking about giving verbatim quotes in footnotes: I thnk this can be clarifying, and can add to the article. I wouldn't suggest any extended quoting that doesn't clearly add value.
I don't think verbatim quotes in footnotes would add any value. If people want to read the source for themselves, they can do so.
Well, no. This thread is about disappearing sources, no? Having verbatim what is being referred to could help:
(a) in replacing a source by a close equivalent; (b) in localising exactly what point is being made, so that further sources can be added; (c) in not needing to go to a library that was available; (d) for the billions who don't have a handy academic library, not leaving them out in the cold with a mere reference.
Standard academic conventions are to cite the source and simply give enough detail for someone to be able to find it for themselves, not to quote the source (unless you are actually discussing the source, in which case the quote goes in the main text).
Wikipedia's readers are not only academics, and we do not aim at academics. We aim at a treatment superior to almost all journalism, but we do not assume the reader has the academic resources available.
I don't see why quotes would add to Wikipedia when they are clearly not considered to add to academic papers and books.
Because our articles are not academic papers.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Well, no. This thread is about disappearing sources, no? Having verbatim what is being referred to could help:
(a) in replacing a source by a close equivalent; (b) in localising exactly what point is being made, so that further sources can be added; (c) in not needing to go to a library that was available; (d) for the billions who don't have a handy academic library, not leaving them out in the cold with a mere reference.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here - if you're suggesting the quote could replace the source for verification purposes, that's just asking for people to post fake quotes - that's not what you're saying, is it? A well written article should make it perfectly clear what point is sourced from what citation without having to read the source. Also, all the relevant information from the source should be included in the article - that's the point of a source. So the quote would be redundant.
Wikipedia's readers are not only academics, and we do not aim at academics. We aim at a treatment superior to almost all journalism, but we do not assume the reader has the academic resources available.
Because our articles are not academic papers.
True, but I still think the conventions are just as appropriate on Wikipedia as they are in academia.
On 12/5/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I don't see why quotes would add to Wikipedia when they are clearly not considered to add to academic papers and books.
Because our articles are not academic papers.
In fact our articles are extremely different from academic papers. Crucially, our authors are not accountable. We don't even have editors that do a basic fact-check before publishing. We can't expect our readers to trust our authors, so we should make every attempt to let readers check the facts for themselves.
Steve