Since when have we banned the use of online subscription news-sites as references, or made it policy that dead links cannot be cited as sources? The latter plainly contradicts [[WP:CS]], and a brief overview of the relevant WP pages reveals no overt ban on citations from subscription sites, but I just found out that somebody pulled out a bunch of such references: < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ketuanan_Melayu&diff=130291263...
I was bold and reverted, but I would like to know if I didn't get the memo or if I've always been misunderstanding how we do things.
Johnleemk
On 15/05/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Since when have we banned the use of online subscription news-sites as references, or made it policy that dead links cannot be cited as sources? The latter plainly contradicts [[WP:CS]], and a brief overview of the relevant WP pages reveals no overt ban on citations from subscription sites, but I just found out that somebody pulled out a bunch of such references: < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ketuanan_Melayu&diff=130291263... I was bold and reverted, but I would like to know if I didn't get the memo or if I've always been misunderstanding how we do things.
* People decide the actual way things are done doesn't suit them, and never mind little details like blatantly contradicting the fundamental rules * People read the version of a policy page written by one of the first people, assume it's gospel and defend it to the hilt, just as if it's carefully thought out and robust instead of a quick hack * Etc etc etc.
- d.
On 15/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
- People decide the actual way things are done doesn't suit them, and
never mind little details like blatantly contradicting the fundamental rules
- People read the version of a policy page written by one of the first
people, assume it's gospel and defend it to the hilt, just as if it's carefully thought out and robust instead of a quick hack
- Etc etc etc.
Oh, I left a pretty pointy message on both his talk page and that of the editor he reverted.
Reference stripping is unacceptable behaviour and attracts strong penalties for good reason.
- d.
On 5/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
- People decide the actual way things are done doesn't suit them, and
never mind little details like blatantly contradicting the fundamental rules
- People read the version of a policy page written by one of the first
people, assume it's gospel and defend it to the hilt, just as if it's carefully thought out and robust instead of a quick hack
- Etc etc etc.
Oh, I left a pretty pointy message on both his talk page and that of the editor he reverted.
Reference stripping is unacceptable behaviour and attracts strong penalties for good reason.
Thanks. Would have done it myself, but I wanted a second opinion first - and being the main author of the article in question, I am wary of getting too involved lest I fall prey to [[WP:OWN]]. Never hurts if you can find other non-involved editors who agree with you. ;-)
Johnleemk
The objection of it being a subscription site is of course wrong, but it seems a little more complicated:
Some or all of the links reverted were to a dead site. This is a different problem. I really do not see a how a link to a site that cannot be reached by anyone at all is a reference. The only way to go would be to find it in a old file somewhere--or to have made a permanent link by one of the available methods in the first place, or to have an equivalent print link.
This is one of the known hazards of using purely online references.
DGG
On 5/15/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
- People decide the actual way things are done doesn't suit them, and
never mind little details like blatantly contradicting the fundamental rules
- People read the version of a policy page written by one of the first
people, assume it's gospel and defend it to the hilt, just as if it's carefully thought out and robust instead of a quick hack
- Etc etc etc.
Oh, I left a pretty pointy message on both his talk page and that of the editor he reverted.
Reference stripping is unacceptable behaviour and attracts strong penalties for good reason.
Thanks. Would have done it myself, but I wanted a second opinion first - and being the main author of the article in question, I am wary of getting too involved lest I fall prey to [[WP:OWN]]. Never hurts if you can find other non-involved editors who agree with you. ;-)
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/16/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The objection of it being a subscription site is of course wrong, but it seems a little more complicated:
Some or all of the links reverted were to a dead site. This is a different problem. I really do not see a how a link to a site that cannot be reached by anyone at all is a reference. The only way to go would be to find it in a old file somewhere--or to have made a permanent link by one of the available methods in the first place, or to have an equivalent print link.
This is one of the known hazards of using purely online references.
The standard - and logical - guideline is to keep them as a record of what sources were used until we can find better ones. As [[WP:CITE]] notes, "When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced." An out-of-print book is still fair game, though if you can find a book that's still in print, you'd be an idiot not to use it.
Johnleemk
But I could put in a link to a dead site and use it to reference anything at all, true or false, and nobody would ever be able to dispute it. I think the reasonable thing to do is to leave the link in the wikitext, and comment it out with an explanation.
Out of print books, even the most esoteric, are still in libraries. Unless dead links are in an internet archive somewhere, they are nowhere at all. DGG
On 5/15/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/16/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The objection of it being a subscription site is of course wrong, but it seems a little more complicated:
Some or all of the links reverted were to a dead site. This is a different problem. I really do not see a how a link to a site that cannot be reached by anyone at all is a reference. The only way to go would be to find it in a old file somewhere--or to have made a permanent link by one of the available methods in the first place, or to have an equivalent print link.
This is one of the known hazards of using purely online references.
The standard - and logical - guideline is to keep them as a record of what sources were used until we can find better ones. As [[WP:CITE]] notes, "When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced." An out-of-print book is still fair game, though if you can find a book that's still in print, you'd be an idiot not to use it.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 15/05/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
But I could put in a link to a dead site and use it to reference anything at all, true or false, and nobody would ever be able to dispute it. I think the reasonable thing to do is to leave the link in the wikitext, and comment it out with an explanation.
But I could make up book references. Except I don't, and neither do you, and neither do most editors. We assume good faith.
- d.
Ah, but you can;t make up book references safely. I can go to a research library and find a copy, or -- if it really makes a difference-- I can ask you for a scan. You can pick the most obscure book, and someone at WP will be there. (
This question has come up before in the context of using unique manuscripts as sources, and I think the potential availability was given as a justification for using them if actually necessary.
Where this has also come up is in the use of master's theses for local history--typically they are not on the web, but as a unique copy in the library of the university where the degree was given. But there is likely to be another person at whatever state university it is, and these can if it is actually important enough to go the trouble be ordered as microfilm from the university, if not available in any other way. DGG
On 5/15/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/05/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
But I could put in a link to a dead site and use it to reference anything at all, true or false, and nobody would ever be able to dispute it. I think the reasonable thing to do is to leave the link in the wikitext, and comment it out with an explanation.
But I could make up book references. Except I don't, and neither do you, and neither do most editors. We assume good faith.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/16/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
But I could put in a link to a dead site and use it to reference anything at all, true or false, and nobody would ever be able to dispute it. I think the reasonable thing to do is to leave the link in the wikitext, and comment it out with an explanation.
Out of print books, even the most esoteric, are still in libraries. Unless dead links are in an internet archive somewhere, they are nowhere at all. DGG
Since at the time those links were put in, they were live, as David Gerard says...Assume Good Faith? It's one thing to link to a dead site after it's died and claim it as a source; it's another to have cited the link when it was live and later have it go dead. That's the reason we have things like "Retrieved on [date]".
Johnleemk
On 5/16/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The objection of it being a subscription site is of course wrong, but it seems a little more complicated:
Some or all of the links reverted were to a dead site. This is a different problem. I really do not see a how a link to a site that cannot be reached by anyone at all is a reference. The only way to go would be to find it in a old file somewhere--or to have made a permanent link by one of the available methods in the first place, or to have an equivalent print link.
Do we agree that: a) A non-subscription reference is better than an equivalent subscription reference b) A subscription reference is better than no reference
Also that: c) A dead link is better than no reference unless there is no hope whatsoever that the link could be used to retrieve the source in the future.
The problem arose at [[Smile (band)]] where an excellent source just disappeared off the web. Archive.org had some of the text, but was missing the scan of a crucial letter-to-the-editor. I wanted to keep the link on the basis that it might eventually come back, or serve as some kind of trail to find the thing again. Not sure whether someone else killed it.
Steve
On 5/15/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Since when have we banned the use of online subscription news-sites as references, or made it policy that dead links cannot be cited as sources? The latter plainly contradicts [[WP:CS]], and a brief overview of the relevant WP pages reveals no overt ban on citations from subscription sites, but I just found out that somebody pulled out a bunch of such references: <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ketuanan_Melayu&diff=130291263...
I was bold and reverted, but I would like to know if I didn't get the memo or if I've always been misunderstanding how we do things.
Johnleemk
I think it's a basic misunderstanding of what verifiable means. If a site is subscription it means it's not verifiable for the person removing it at that point. That shouldn't prevent anyone from looking further than a simple google search, though. There's other ways to get at subscription info. We have a nice page for that ourselves.
Mgm
On 5/16/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Since when have we banned the use of online subscription news-sites as references, or made it policy that dead links cannot be cited as
sources?
The latter plainly contradicts [[WP:CS]], and a brief overview of the relevant WP pages reveals no overt ban on citations from subscription sites, but I just found out that somebody pulled out a bunch of such
references:
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ketuanan_Melayu&diff=130291263...
I was bold and reverted, but I would like to know if I didn't get the
memo
or if I've always been misunderstanding how we do things.
Johnleemk
I think it's a basic misunderstanding of what verifiable means. If a site is subscription it means it's not verifiable for the person removing it at that point. That shouldn't prevent anyone from looking further than a simple google search, though. There's other ways to get at subscription info. We have a nice page for that ourselves.
Well, as I put it on the talk page after I reverted, meatspace newspapers require subscriptions, but we don't ban them as references. Treat a web source which requires subscription as a meatspace source and you'll see how ludicrous it is to assume that subscription web sources are unverifiable and inaccessible. (I just remembered that {{cite news}} even has a specific option for mentioning that the source is subscription-only.) This reminds me a bit of the time when a Singaporean editor said my Malaysian newspapers weren't verifiable for him because they are censored in Singapore.
Johnleemk