Brian wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> SJ wrote:
>>
>>>> When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into
>>>> connection to people editing and adding contents - it must be seen
>>>> as something separate - many people are not able to "separate"
>>>> things themselves they will combine and make something different
>>>> out of all this.
>>>
>>> What does this mean? How can citations be separate from adding
>>> content?
>>> Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from;
>>> other people can do nothing but guess.
>>
>> Why does it matter where it came from? Except in cases where you're
>> dealing with a primary source and it's essential to check the
>> original, the choice of sources is just as subject to editing as the
>> content. If I add content and cite a pathetically bad source, the
>> source does not need to stay in the article even if it happens to be
>> right (if it happens to be wrong and represents a significant point
>> of view might be another matter). Other people can find other and
>> often better sources even if they're unable to determine what the
>> initial source was, and if the case involves a primary source then
>> the information inherently points to where you need to look.
>>
>> Many people don't seem to understand this and think there's some kind
>> of rule that once a source has been used in the writing of an
>> article, it must be cited or preserved in a References section for
>> all time. Even normal scholarly practice doesn't require this (else
>> probably most Wikipedia articles would need to cite other Wikipedia
>> articles as references), and we in particular should be able to get
>> past such limited ways of thinking. One of the virtues of our
>> collaborative system is that there is very little need to try and
>> divine the intent of an original author, and we needn't be beholden
>> to that person in terms of choosing sources either.
>
> On the contrary, any published books, such as.... Encyclopaedia
> Britannica, has every single one of the its facts checked against each
> individual source. This is a requirement of the publisher, and of the
> company. They don't make their sources public, so we have to trust
> them, but because they have checked each fact, it is usually alright
> to trust them. We, on the other hand, by default are accepting new
> information without any sources.
Perhaps I wasn't quite clear. I was addressing the separability of
citations from content, but I wasn't suggesting removing source
citations unless you're replacing them with better sources.
--Michael Snow