Mark Williamson wrote:
I don't recall saying they couldn't, just that
I find it irritating.
Adding citations that weren't actually used is bad. Adding references
or see alsos, good.
Mark
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:07:59 -0800, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com> wrote:
>Mark Williamson wrote:
>
>
>
>>If you add text to the article, you may add your own cites and you
>>won't at all irritate me.
>>
>>
>>
>Didn't you read the fine print on the edit screen? People can edit
>your writing in any way that seems good to them and conforms to
>policy; it's not your place to say that they can't, whether it's
>to add or change citations, references, see alsos, or whatever.
>I care much more that the readers see a sensible article than
>whether my edits irritate you or not.
>
>Stan
>
>
>
>
I think the point Mark is making is that there is a difference between a
source actually used when writing the document, and a suggestion for
further reading. One suggests that the source was used as a text source
or authority, the other does not. Mixing the two up can create a false
impression; and unfortunately many editors do not appreciate the
differences.
There's a big difference between saying "I read this as I wrote this
article", "I used this as an authority", and "someone mentioned this
in
their list of references for another article on the subject".
-- Neil