On 8/10/07, Majorly <axel9891(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
On 10/08/07, daniwo59(a)aol.com <daniwo59(a)aol.com> wrote:
Sourcing and reliable sourcing seems to be the topic of the day, so it
is
worth taking a look at some examples of
"sourcing" to see how practical
they
are. In the English Wikipedia, at least, there seems to be a culture of
adding
{{fact}} templates to articles, and while these are often valid, at
other
times, the source can be found in the very next
sentence. In many
instances, a
source can be found simply by going to Google or Google Books, so that I
wonder
whether the person putting in the {{fact}} tags actually bothered to
check
> if any information was readily available.
This is how it works, obviously it needs to be more clearer and the fact tag
will help make the article better. People must think that there are certain
"wikignomes" who go through the uncited category and find fact for things
like this and that it'll get done faster that way.
More disconcerting, however, is the idea of
sourcing with Wikipedia
articles. This morning I went through the article on [[Italy]]. In the
reference
section, there are six citations of other Wikipedia articles, which is
interesting because the facts there are unsourced too. See footnotes
14-17
> and 23, 24
> for examples. Note that I am not saying the information is
> wrong--simply that
> it would be nice to see it validated and confirmed, and if it is
> validated,
> to see it validated properly.
Well, this isn't really allowed and is discouraged. We're not supposed to
source Wikipedia articles with other Wikipedia article.s
Danny
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new
AOL
at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
People will add tags often before even trying to verify the stuff
themselves
(which is the whole point of Wikipedia), and all it often takes is a quick
Google search to find a relevant website/news article etc. Just as bad as
citing Wikipedia though, is citing mirror sites. Ensure the text you cite
simply isn't a copy of Wikipedia :P Check the date of the website and try
to
see which came first, to see if it really is original. And of course, it
must be a reliable source, not someone's personal Geocities site :)
Wikipedia, sadly is not reliable as we'd want it to be.
:-( but true.
--
Alex (Majorly)
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.