Other than just nay-saying my opinions, with your own opinions, do you have a *positive* opinion on the topic? Which is whether our BLP's in general suffer from "low citation quality" ?
There's a certain glamour in just nullifying someone else's position, but I don't think that's going to propel us forward.
Will Johnson
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:13 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Other than just nay-saying my opinions, with your own opinions, do you have a *positive* opinion on the topic? Which is whether our BLP's in general suffer from "low citation quality" ?
There's a certain glamour in just nullifying someone else's position, but I don't think that's going to propel us forward.
See, I am not going to express a general opinion on "citation quality is low" or "citation quality is high" because I would need to closely look at a few random BLP and a few "high-profile" BLP articles and (for me personally) assess every source there to be able to make a statement on that.
If you want a "positive opinion" on that: I do not having a problem with Wikipedia being "academic" at all, indeed I very much support this. Mind you, this doesn't mean that we should try to write as"academically and unintelligibly (to the general public) as possible, but I'm referring to the sources we use etc. - I think we should not lower our standards just to attract more readers.
Michael
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:13 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Other than just nay-saying my opinions, with your own opinions, do you
have
a *positive* opinion on the topic? Which is whether our BLP's in general suffer from "low citation quality"
?
There's a certain glamour in just nullifying someone else's position, but
I
don't think that's going to propel us forward.
See, I am not going to express a general opinion on "citation quality is low" or "citation quality is high" because I would need to closely look at a few random BLP and a few "high-profile" BLP articles and (for me personally) assess every source there to be able to make a statement on that.
If you want a "positive opinion" on that: I do not having a problem with Wikipedia being "academic" at all, indeed I very much support this. Mind you, this doesn't mean that we should try to write as"academically and unintelligibly (to the general public) as possible, but I'm referring to the sources we use etc. - I think we should not lower our standards just to attract more readers.
I think it's important to note, however, that "academic coverage" is not and should not be a prerequisite for something being covered in Wikipedia.
Thinking of Wikipedia as an academic project in the exclusive sense, where we would remove things which are otherwise notable but not covered by the topical equivalent of peer reviewed primary and secondary sources, is a mistake.
Not taking advantage of legitimate good academic source material out there is a mistake. Not writing articles in an encyclopedic manner is a mistake.
But trying to turn this into an academic project is an equally bad mistake. We're not an academic project - the core goal of the project is open contribution and collaboration. The statement "We should improve quality" is not equivalent to "We should become an academic project".