Steve Block wrote
Steve Bennett wrote:
In general, we should be more selective with what external links we provide, and how we present them.
We already do.
We should distinguish between:
- Sources of the information in the article
These should be placed in the References section, not the External links one.
I looked at [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] on this, and I don't think that guideline is optimal. It is much better, if you need a weblink as reference for something specific, to make an inline link or make a note. In fact a note is much superior, because you can attach a comment or point up some specific phrase used.
If you just put raw weblinks in a References section, and don't specify the relevance, how can anyone tell that the link is playing a reference role?
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
I think it's bad business to get in the habit of setting up official policies that exclude factual, referenced, neutral information from inclusion in Wikipedia.
The natural extension of this tendency will lead to the typical elitist exclusionism that all institutional media typically fall victim to.
Wikipedia is not paper.
On 11/27/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Steve Block wrote
Steve Bennett wrote:
In general, we should be more selective with what external links we provide, and how we present them.
We already do.
We should distinguish between:
- Sources of the information in the article
These should be placed in the References section, not the External links one.
I looked at [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] on this, and I don't think that guideline is optimal. It is much better, if you need a weblink as reference for something specific, to make an inline link or make a note. In fact a note is much superior, because you can attach a comment or point up some specific phrase used.
If you just put raw weblinks in a References section, and don't specify the relevance, how can anyone tell that the link is playing a reference role?
Charles
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/27/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's bad business to get in the habit of setting up official policies that exclude factual, referenced, neutral information from inclusion in Wikipedia.
The natural extension of this tendency will lead to the typical elitist exclusionism that all institutional media typically fall victim to.
Wikipedia is not paper.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Been policy for a long time.
Yes, but fiction is almost always widely released and seen, consumed, noticed, and analysed by many people. If a large number of people are interested in reading and writing about a work of fiction and/or it's characters -- which is true of a vast majority of said works -- then it isn't "indiscriminate", by definition.
~~ Sean On 11/27/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's bad business to get in the habit of setting up official policies that exclude factual, referenced, neutral information from inclusion in Wikipedia.
The natural extension of this tendency will lead to the typical elitist exclusionism that all institutional media typically fall victim to.
Wikipedia is not paper.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Been policy for a long time.
geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Being 100% true and of general interest pretty much should mean it is suitable for inclusion.
Fortunately the GFDLing of all this content allows some pretty good bleed in the borders.
On 11/27/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's bad business to get in the habit of setting up official policies that exclude factual, referenced, neutral information from inclusion in Wikipedia.
The natural extension of this tendency will lead to the typical elitist exclusionism that all institutional media typically fall victim to.
Wikipedia is not paper.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Been policy for a long time.
geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l