"Thomas Dalton" wrote
Quotes in the article where appropriate are fine - I thought you meant in the footnotes (you mentioned "more verbatim footnotes".
If you're writing an article on a mathematical theorem, for example, quoting from the paper that first discussed it (ie. the main primary source) would probably add to the article. I'm not sure quoting secondary sources would be useful very often, though.
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.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
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.
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). I don't see why quotes would add to Wikipedia when they are clearly not considered to add to academic papers and books.