...well, works cited where the citation involves an ISBN, anyway.
http://www.librarything.com/blog/2007/02/wikipedia-citatons-with-feed.php
Quite an interesting idea to play with, there.
Andrew Gray wrote:
...well, works cited where the citation involves an ISBN, anyway.
http://www.librarything.com/blog/2007/02/wikipedia-citatons-with-feed.php
Quite an interesting idea to play with, there.
What a coincidence - I was just today pondering how it was that many of the books in my librarything collection seem not to be referenced by WP articles, even some of those to which I personally added the reference. Not necessarily vandalism though, one thing we learn quickly from librarything is just how many dozens of ISBNs can be associated with a particular work...
An interesting future possibility is to provide a route for article checkers to get in touch with people who actually own the book being referenced.
Stan
On 27/02/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
...well, works cited where the citation involves an ISBN, anyway.
http://www.librarything.com/blog/2007/02/wikipedia-citatons-with-feed.php
Quite an interesting idea to play with, there.
What a coincidence - I was just today pondering how it was that many of the books in my librarything collection seem not to be referenced by WP articles, even some of those to which I personally added the reference. Not necessarily vandalism though, one thing we learn quickly from librarything is just how many dozens of ISBNs can be associated with a particular work...
An interesting future possibility is to provide a route for article checkers to get in touch with people who actually own the book being referenced.
An excellent idea! Which reminds me... there's a "union catalogue" group for the German wikipedia with much the same goals. I've set one up for enwp; where would be best to spread the word? A sizable number of users could produce an interesting reference resource...
http://www.librarything.com/groups/englishwikipedia
Stan Shebs wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
...well, works cited where the citation involves an ISBN, anyway.
http://www.librarything.com/blog/2007/02/wikipedia-citatons-with-feed.php
Quite an interesting idea to play with, there.
What a coincidence - I was just today pondering how it was that many of the books in my librarything collection seem not to be referenced by WP articles, even some of those to which I personally added the reference. Not necessarily vandalism though, one thing we learn quickly from librarything is just how many dozens of ISBNs can be associated with a particular work...
An interesting future possibility is to provide a route for article checkers to get in touch with people who actually own the book being referenced.
I added a couple of books to this site in December 2005 just to get the hang of it, but never got back to it. With others now interested I can now take a second look
Ec
On 27/02/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What a coincidence - I was just today pondering how it was that many of the books in my librarything collection seem not to be referenced by WP articles, even some of those to which I personally added the reference. Not necessarily vandalism though, one thing we learn quickly from librarything is just how many dozens of ISBNs can be associated with a particular work...
An interesting future possibility is to provide a route for article checkers to get in touch with people who actually own the book being referenced.
I added a couple of books to this site in December 2005 just to get the hang of it, but never got back to it. With others now interested I can now take a second look
It's a lovely idea to play with, isn't it? If nothing else it cuts down on my duplicate-buying...
Ad left on WP:VP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Libr...
On 3/2/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/02/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I added a couple of books to this site in December 2005 just to get the hang of it, but never got back to it. With others now interested I can now take a second look
It's a lovely idea to play with, isn't it? If nothing else it cuts down on my duplicate-buying...
LibraryThing is a terrible site.
Because whenever I remember it exists again, I spend way too much time playing with it.
-Kat
On 2/27/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
...well, works cited where the citation involves an ISBN, anyway.
http://www.librarything.com/blog/2007/02/wikipedia-citatons-with-feed.php
Oh dear: ---- What's the most cited books? The most cited book on Wikipedia is... The Official Pokemon Handbook. Surprised? Don't be. In fact, eighteen of the top twenty most-cited works are Pokemon books. It boggles the mind. Somebody, or a bunch of somebodies went ISBN-happy on all the Pokemon entries. Fortunately, the existence of so many citations to Pokemon does not impair the quality of the rest. It's just... Wikipedia. ----
It's actually not surprising though: references are often added "defensively" on Wikipedia, as an argument against deleting the article. Pokemon articles are more likely than others to be nominated for AfD.
Steve
On Feb 27, 2007, at 6:10 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/27/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
...well, works cited where the citation involves an ISBN, anyway.
http://www.librarything.com/blog/2007/02/wikipedia-citatons-with- feed.php
Oh dear:
What's the most cited books? The most cited book on Wikipedia is... The Official Pokemon Handbook. Surprised? Don't be. In fact, eighteen of the top twenty most-cited works are Pokemon books. It boggles the mind. Somebody, or a bunch of somebodies went ISBN-happy on all the Pokemon entries. Fortunately, the existence of so many citations to Pokemon does not impair the quality of the rest. It's just... Wikipedia.
It's actually not surprising though: references are often added "defensively" on Wikipedia, as an argument against deleting the article. Pokemon articles are more likely than others to be nominated for AfD.
Well this certainly puts a nail in the "citations worked" coffin.
-Phil
On 2/27/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It's actually not surprising though: references are often added "defensively" on Wikipedia, as an argument against deleting the article. Pokemon articles are more likely than others to be nominated for AfD.
Not quite that simple. If there are a standard set of references on Pokemon once you have used them on one article you can probably use them on all the others.
The classic counter case is European monarchs where you are likely going to need a completely different set of refs every time (the upshot of this is featured articles are likely to appear in families where once someone has worked out the formulae for getting one such article to FA status they can then do it to all the others).
On 2/28/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite that simple. If there are a standard set of references on Pokemon once you have used them on one article you can probably use them on all the others.
Yeah, and there is nothing wrong inherently wrong with this. But either of two things can happen: * The references are added by hand each time, meaning each article has slightly different references, or the same ones cited differently, for no apparent reason. * The references are put in a template which is used on every article, whether or not any information from a specific source was actually used on the article.
We still lack decent tools for referencing.
Steve