koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com
Ortolan88 wrote:
We have no guarantee that the entries will remain the same either. The bioastropedia is an excellent web site, but we aren't going to import their articles wholesale and leave them untouched forever, are we?
Well, no, I didn't expect us to. I guess the question is "at what point have articles changed enough from the source that it's ok to remove the citation"? I would (today, anyway) urge people to leave the citations in and change "works cited" to "works consulted"--if for no other reason than that several notable academics have been caught plagiarizing lately.
I recently noted that in the article on [[New Age]], there are several quote lengthy direct quotes (with attribution and permissions), but these quotes are 7 or 8 lengthy paragraphs long; and contain some POV material (as well as some incorrect material, as noted in the wiki commentary for the article).
What is the correct approach here? Summarize with attribution? Leave it alone? The latter seems inconsistent with the spirit of wiki, the former may result in a reduction of credibility by removing some referenced source.
Cheers - Chas