Also, while I'd have no qualms about citing 三省堂言語学大辞典セレクション:日本列島の言語 in
an English Wikipedia article, I would be wary of including it as a
"see also", even though it is the standard reference work and is a
billion times better than the most comprehensive English-language work
on the topic, "The Languages of Japan" by Masayosi Sibatani, because
that assumes that the majority or even a significant number of readers
will be able to read it, which isn't true.
Mark
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:59:01 -0800, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com> wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Whenever somebody adds a random cite to an article
written mostly or
entirely by me, I remove it unless I actually DID use that source.
So no one is allowed to touch the article references section except
yourself? That's a little possessive, to say the least. Suppose I
check your claims against my reference, find them good, see no reason
to change the text, and add the reference as a token that I've done
the checking?
References are there for *other* people to use; if you've neglected
to mention the standard text that readers should look at if they want
to know more, then other editors need to be able to fix your mistake.
By your reasoning, we could never add to the references section
for an article written two years ago by someone who has since moved
on, nor could a 1911EB-derived article ever get updated references,
at least not without casting a resurrection spell first...
Stan