Hi all, Somewhat in response to Jimbo's post, I thought I'd offer an example of an article I've been working on, which has a massive number of footnotes. Pretty much every sentence in it I wrote with reference to one website or another, so I footnoted them all. Perhaps I suspect some of it is dodgy, so I prefer the source being explicitly stated.
Anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnac_stones
I would like to hear from people whether they consider this level of footnoting excessive, about right, deficient etc. I believe that this article may almost meet WP:V, if it wasn't for the fact that most of the sources are amateur websites. The sentence about Kermarquer is definitely Original Research, but I'm sure sooner or later I'll find a source to back me up.
Steve
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Somewhat in response to Jimbo's post, I thought I'd offer an example of an article I've been working on, which has a massive number of footnotes. Pretty much every sentence in it I wrote with reference to one website or another, so I footnoted them all. Perhaps I suspect some of it is dodgy, so I prefer the source being explicitly stated.
Anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnac_stones
I would like to hear from people whether they consider this level of footnoting excessive, about right, deficient etc. I believe that this article may almost meet WP:V, if it wasn't for the fact that most of the sources are amateur websites. The sentence about Kermarquer is definitely Original Research, but I'm sure sooner or later I'll find a source to back me up.
Steve
You didn't cite in the intro the "exceptionally dense collection" claim. :)
But that's pretty good. Ideally, from my standpoint, those references in the bottom would contain not just the source information, but the actual quotes you were using, so one does not need to pore over the article/long research paper/whatever. For an example of what I sort of mean, see my [[Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity]]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_the_Brethren_of_Purity
~maru
On 5/17/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
You didn't cite in the intro the "exceptionally dense collection" claim. :)
True. I threw that in to avoid being a hypocrit when I say all articles should claim notability. :) I'll try and fix that.
But that's pretty good. Ideally, from my standpoint, those references in the bottom would contain not just the source information, but the actual quotes you were using, so one does not need to pore over the article/long research paper/whatever.
Ah yeah. That may be the only convenient way to quote long web pages, where you don't have page numbers to point the reader to the relevant section, actually.
For an example of what I sort of mean, see my [[Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity]]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_the_Brethren_of_Purity
How come you aren't using <ref> tags? Because of the wordiness of the footnotes?
Steve
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
...
But that's pretty good. Ideally, from my standpoint, those references in the bottom would contain not just the source information, but the actual quotes you were using, so one does not need to pore over the article/long research paper/whatever.
Ah yeah. That may be the only convenient way to quote long web pages, where you don't have page numbers to point the reader to the relevant section, actually.
Well, not just web pages. At least with web pages, one can search within them. Quoting is especially important with books! I mean, if one has a 700 page book on Japanese poetry which one is using in [[Fujiwara no Teika]], then at the very minimum, you have to give the page number.
For an example of what I sort of mean, see my [[Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity]]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_the_Brethren_of_Purity
How come you aren't using <ref> tags? Because of the wordiness of the footnotes?
Steve
That, and the fact I don't know/understand the <ref> tag system yet, whereas I do know {{note}} and {{ref}}.
~maru
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
It's great. I have two suggestions.
First, make friends with the {{cite...}} templates which allow you to format the references with authors, dates and other meta-data. You can include them inside the <ref> tags.
Second, I for one desperately want a map showing where all those stones are in relation to each other.
HTH HAND
On 5/17/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
It's great. I have two suggestions.
First, make friends with the {{cite...}} templates which allow you to format the references with authors, dates and other meta-data. You can include them inside the <ref> tags.
That's on my list of things to do. I only just made friends with <ref>. Cite is next :)
Incidentally, a tip for the readers at home: <ref> is incredibly easy to use, if you don't bother with cite. This is all you need to "cite" a url nicely:
Some text <ref>http://my.url.com</ref>
==References== <references />
That's all it takes!
Second, I for one desperately want a map showing where all those stones are in relation to each other.
Me too :( I've started compiling a list of such maps, and when time and skills permit, will start drawing one. There are two links in the "online maps" section. Clues to how to draw a map would be appreciated (presumably one doesn't have to use MSPaint...)
Steve
What about Google Earth pins?
On 5/17/06, Thomas Voghera thomasvoghera@gmail.com wrote:
What about Google Earth pins?
I just checked Google Maps and its coverage in that area is very bad. I've got some GPS coords but will add more.
Steve
I doubt you can overcite anything. I would consider this sufficiently cited, although I haven't checked the reliability of the sites in question.
By the way, I recommend you put the protest website in the external links section and not within the article. It sounds a little POV-ish to put external links with a particular POV in an article. Besides, the Manual of Style is pretty much against it.
Mgm
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Somewhat in response to Jimbo's post, I thought I'd offer an example of an article I've been working on, which has a massive number of footnotes. Pretty much every sentence in it I wrote with reference to one website or another, so I footnoted them all. Perhaps I suspect some of it is dodgy, so I prefer the source being explicitly stated.
Anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnac_stones
I would like to hear from people whether they consider this level of footnoting excessive, about right, deficient etc. I believe that this article may almost meet WP:V, if it wasn't for the fact that most of the sources are amateur websites. The sentence about Kermarquer is definitely Original Research, but I'm sure sooner or later I'll find a source to back me up.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I doubt you can overcite anything. I would consider this sufficiently cited, although I haven't checked the reliability of the sites in question.
Cool - you see so little citing on non-controversial topics that it seems out of place.
By the way, I recommend you put the protest website in the external links section and not within the article. It sounds a little POV-ish to put external links with a particular POV in an article. Besides, the Manual of Style is pretty much against it.
Good idea. I included it more as a demonstration that such protest groups do exist. Moved to external links.
Steve
On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:37:58 +0200, you wrote:
I doubt you can overcite anything. I would consider this sufficiently cited, although I haven't checked the reliability of the sites in question.
Yup, I agree entirely. A well-referenced article, in fact. I also agree with your suggestion (subsequently adopted) re the external link.
One down, 999,999 to go :-)
Guy (JzG)
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to hear from people whether they consider this level of footnoting excessive, about right, deficient etc.
The level is not a problem. I tend to agree that there's no such thing as overciting, though I'm sure someone will eventually WP:POINT out an exception to that rule. As you say, the problem is more with the nature of the sources used. Much of the article is currently sourced to a web site called "Megalithic Walks" which is only attributed to "Graham and Angela" and which does not, itself, cite sources.
However, citing such amateur websites is perfectly fine -- it's basically one step above "citation needed" and tells other editors that it would be nice to have a more authoritative source for the claim (and also that it's OK to remove it if it is in dispute).
Erik
On 5/17/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
The level is not a problem. I tend to agree that there's no such thing as overciting, though I'm sure someone will eventually WP:POINT out an exception to that rule. As you say, the problem is more with the nature of the sources used. Much of the article is currently sourced to a web site called "Megalithic Walks" which is only attributed to "Graham and Angela" and which does not, itself, cite sources.
However, citing such amateur websites is perfectly fine -- it's basically one step above "citation needed" and tells other editors that it would be nice to have a more authoritative source for the claim (and also that it's OK to remove it if it is in dispute).
Yes, I feel that for a reader, knowing that the information that a given stone circle is 23 metres wide came from an amateur website is a hell of a lot more useful than just being told "this stone circle is 23 metres wide". However I still have two unresolved problems: a) How to elegantly express the fact that two different sources have contradicting accounts. Do I write: This stone circle is 23 [1] or 28 [2] metres wide, and ... or do I actually have to incorporate the metadata about the sources into the body: The size of the stone circle is reported differently in different accounts, as being either 23 [1] or 28 [2] metres... b) How to elegantly express the fact that I simply don't know something which is pertinent. Wikipedia does not have a narrator's voice. A newspaper might say "The Age was unable to determine the man's name", and a book or blog might simply use "I". I feel it's misleading to say "The origins of the rock are unknown" when surely someone *does* know them - but we (I) don't.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/17/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
The level is not a problem. I tend to agree that there's no such thing as overciting, though I'm sure someone will eventually WP:POINT out an exception to that rule. As you say, the problem is more with the nature of the sources used. Much of the article is currently sourced to a web site called "Megalithic Walks" which is only attributed to "Graham and Angela" and which does not, itself, cite sources.
However, citing such amateur websites is perfectly fine -- it's basically one step above "citation needed" and tells other editors that it would be nice to have a more authoritative source for the claim (and also that it's OK to remove it if it is in dispute).
Yes, I feel that for a reader, knowing that the information that a given stone circle is 23 metres wide came from an amateur website is a hell of a lot more useful than just being told "this stone circle is 23 metres wide". However I still have two unresolved problems: a) How to elegantly express the fact that two different sources have contradicting accounts. Do I write: This stone circle is 23 [1] or 28 [2] metres wide, and ... or do I actually have to incorporate the metadata about the sources into the body: The size of the stone circle is reported differently in different accounts, as being either 23 [1] or 28 [2] metres... b) How to elegantly express the fact that I simply don't know something which is pertinent. Wikipedia does not have a narrator's voice. A newspaper might say "The Age was unable to determine the man's name", and a book or blog might simply use "I". I feel it's misleading to say "The origins of the rock are unknown" when surely someone *does* know them - but we (I) don't.
"Various sources give differing accounts..." and let NPOV (state all major viewpoints and let the reader sort it out) do the rest? :)
On 5/17/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to hear from people whether they consider this level of footnoting excessive, about right, deficient etc.
The level is not a problem. I tend to agree that there's no such thing as overciting, though I'm sure someone will eventually WP:POINT out an exception to that rule.
I did provide three cites for one factoid once. The person I was in a disspute with still tried to challange it though.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Steve Bennett wrote:
Somewhat in response to Jimbo's post, I thought I'd offer an example of an article I've been working on, which has a massive number of footnotes.
[Snip]
I see your 27 references and raise you 34 - [[Andrew Adonis, Baron Adonis]] (very much needs many more references, though).
Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
On 5/17/06, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
I see your 27 references and raise you 34 - [[Andrew Adonis, Baron Adonis]] (very much needs many more references, though).
Since we're offering mutual criticism, it's probably better in your footnotes that the footnote read as the date/page/newspaper of the article, rather than just "Times article on...", isn't it?
For URLs I'm starting to develop a style whether I either leave the URL bare or with a title coming from the page itself, followed by any commentary I have to make on it:[www.company.com Company Inc] - corporate website; www.magicmap.com - has maps relating to subject.
Also you're still using the old referencing format - Cyde Wey has a magic script to convert. I am very impressed at your categorisation though :)
Steve