Sorry if this is all spelt out on policy pages, but I can't find it clearly enough. I'm wondering how self-contained articles need to be with regard to citations.
Take an example (but please answer on the principle and not on the example). Suppose an article has this: [[Babe Ruth]] hit 60 home runs in the 1927 season.
Now someone comes along and slaps a "citation required" tag on it. Someone else takes off the tag on the grounds that the WP article on Babe Ruth is linked right there and has copious citations that covers this fact.
Who is right? We aren't supposed to use Wikipedia as a source, but I always took that to mean that Wikipedia is not an -ultimate- source for anything, not that a wikilink can never be an adequate way to show where the source for something can be found.
Zero.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 21/08/06, zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
Take an example (but please answer on the principle and not on the example). Suppose an article has this: [[Babe Ruth]] hit 60 home runs in the 1927 season. Now someone comes along and slaps a "citation required" tag on it. Someone else takes off the tag on the grounds that the WP article on Babe Ruth is linked right there and has copious citations that covers this fact.
I certainly hope there isn't a policy yet. To answer in the general case, I would say you should look into your heart and see what your editorial judgement says.
Sometimes the cite can be put right in there without it seeming to be stupid, in which case hey, why not - I took the time to learn the new references syntax and it's really pretty darn cool. Sometimes it would lead to "The sky is blue {{cite}}".
We need process, but not more than is absolutely required to get stuff done.
- d.
On 8/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I certainly hope there isn't a policy yet. To answer in the general case, I would say you should look into your heart and see what your editorial judgement says.
How about a guideline?
My heart says to copy the reference as many times as needed. In rare instances where that means several hundred copies of the reference, a template or a link might be better.
Steve
On 8/21/06, zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
Sorry if this is all spelt out on policy pages, but I can't find it clearly enough. I'm wondering how self-contained articles need to be with regard to citations.
Take an example (but please answer on the principle and not on the example). Suppose an article has this: [[Babe Ruth]] hit 60 home runs in the 1927 season.
Now someone comes along and slaps a "citation required" tag on it. Someone else takes off the tag on the grounds that the WP article on Babe Ruth is linked right there and has copious citations that covers this fact.
Often the problem is that the Babe Ruth article doesn't have a specific citation for this either.
Who is right? We aren't supposed to use Wikipedia as a source, but I always took that to mean that Wikipedia is not an -ultimate- source for anything, not that a wikilink can never be an adequate way to show where the source for something can be found.
There's an easy solution; if there's a citation in the Babe Ruth article, then copy it into the other article. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a Wiki, so you don't know, at any given time, whether or not the article on Babe Ruth will actually have that citation in it. Putting in the other article means you don't have to rely on the Babe Ruth article, and, if it ever somehow gets deleted, there's still a history that one can go back to to find and restore it.
Jay.
On 8/21/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
There's an easy solution; if there's a citation in the Babe Ruth article, then copy it into the other article. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a Wiki, so you don't know, at any given time, whether or not the article on Babe Ruth will actually have that citation in it. Putting in the other article means you don't have to rely on the Babe Ruth article, and, if it ever somehow gets deleted, there's still a history that one can go back to to find and restore it.
Yes..
Personally I think our standard for providing citations should be 'if any sane participant in good faith thinks there should be a citation', then we should go ahead and provide it...
At the same time, lets be clear: If I see anyone going around {{fact}}ing multiple pages rather than fixing it themselves when (1) they believe the fact to be true, and (2) providing the citation is as easy as copying it from another page.... I will be one of the first to sign on the RFCs against them.
Sometimes I add {{fact}} to articles and sections that I write - as a reminder to myself that I need a better source, or because my source is at home or in the library and I can't quite cite accurately without having it to hand.
I don't personally see a problem with this - anyone else?
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
Sometimes I add {{fact}} to articles and sections that I write - as a reminder to myself that I need a better source, or because my source is at home or in the library and I can't quite cite accurately without having it to hand.
I don't personally see a problem with this - anyone else?
It makes perfectly good sense to me. It's also consistent with the rule that says we should leave something for others to do.
Ec
On 8/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It makes perfectly good sense to me. It's also consistent with the rule that says we should leave something for others to do.
You oldschooler, you.
Steve
On 8/21/06, zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote: [snip]
Now someone comes along and slaps a "citation required" tag on it. Someone else takes off the tag on the grounds that the WP article on Babe Ruth is linked right there and has copious citations that covers this fact.
Who is right? We aren't supposed to use Wikipedia as a source, but I always took that to mean that Wikipedia is not an -ultimate- source for anything, not that a wikilink can never be an adequate way to show where the source for something can be found.
If someone came around and slapped the tag on it I see two possibilities: 1) They didn't know that the information was right there. 2) They know something we don't, considered it insufficient.
So why not try something somewhat novel on Wikipedia... Have a chat with them rather than revert warring.
If they after being shown the other article the still find the citation insufficient... go ahead and humor them and copy the reference over. It won't hurt.
Our citation policy needs to be aggressively worded, and in undefined cases default to 'cite it', because it is our best 'policy hammer' against kooks adding original research. At the same time that makes it useful for the disruption of Wikipedia.
As a result we must be aggressive in preventing people from misusing the policy to disrupt... but one case does not demonstrate a pattern of disruption.
If someone makes a practice of going around and {{fact}}ing obvious things, then they are due an RFC, and if that fails, I'd hope arbcom would be quite willing to censure them.
On 21/08/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
If someone makes a practice of going around and {{fact}}ing obvious things, then they are due an RFC, and if that fails, I'd hope arbcom would be quite willing to censure them.
It has been in the past, thankfully.
- d.
On Aug 21, 2006, at 11:38 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 21/08/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
If someone makes a practice of going around and {{fact}}ing obvious things, then they are due an RFC, and if that fails, I'd hope arbcom would be quite willing to censure them.
It has been in the past, thankfully.
And, unless this has changed, the policy on citing sources and reliable sources expressly says not to tag stuff that you don't question the accuracy of.
Did we ever revise the definition of a reliable source to something where all of our featured articles were valid, btw?
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.