Below is a message from a new user that I think should be discussed here:
-----Forward---- I don't know how this works, but I know some sites like Google News and CNN are partners with nytimes.com, which is frequently linked to from Wikipedia.org
Being a partner allows users to click on a link and go straight to the article, not having to sign-in or register from nytimes.com (which is free).
The partner code is nothing special (just some suffixes on a standard URI), in fact you can change the partner id in a url to anything and it will still work, however I am sure there are steps to be legitimate with nytimes.com.
Such a feature--being able to click and access and article without having to have an ID at nytimes.com--would be an advantage to both the non-nytimes.com users and those who happen to be at a foriegn computer when using Wikipedia, especially considering the importance of that paper and its hypertextual prevalence here.
Thank you, Ry Rivard
(Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com): Below is a message from a new user that I think should be discussed here:
[Notes about becoming a NYTimes partner]
Yes, direct links without registration would be nice, but I wonder about the idea of encyclopedia articles linking to newspaper reports in general. Maybe for articles about historical events some coverage about contemporary beliefs and attitudes is warranted, but in an important sense, news and encyclopedic information are very different things with different goals, and I don't want to encourage the habit of linking to news reports and calling that an article. Even if there is some background information in the article itself, linking to news reports legitimizes them as a source of information, when for the most part all news reports are entertainment.
On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 13:50, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
Even if there is some background information in the article itself, linking to news reports legitimizes them as a source of information, when for the most part all news reports are entertainment.
That's an interesting assertion. Especially considering that pretty much all the Wikipedia entries on current events rely on news reports for the informational content.
It's certainly true that primary sources are preferable, but we need to be realistic.
Finally, the concept that a Wikipedia entry linking to newspaper articles legitimizes the articles as sources of information presupposes an authoritative legitimacy of the Wikipedia entry itself, which one would think would be based on a consideration of the legitimacy of its sources, which are the samesaid newspaper articles.
--- Lee Daniel Crocker lee@piclab.com wrote:
Yes, direct links without registration would be nice, but I wonder about the idea of encyclopedia articles linking to newspaper reports in general.
I have a twist on that notion.
Since when does an encyclopedia have to quote sources of its information? Isn't the point of an encyclopedia to be authoritative, a resource which is quoted by others?
I don't mind a link. I don't mind external resources. To me they fall under the "see also" heading.
As far as articles in development, yes, sources should be quotes to allow fellow editors to check and recheck and so on, but once the article is formalized, all that should just go to the talk page.
Makes sense?
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
On 4/11/03 6:19 PM, "Christopher Mahan" chris_mahan@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Lee Daniel Crocker lee@piclab.com wrote:
Yes, direct links without registration would be nice, but I wonder about the idea of encyclopedia articles linking to newspaper reports in general.
I have a twist on that notion.
Since when does an encyclopedia have to quote sources of its information? Isn't the point of an encyclopedia to be authoritative, a resource which is quoted by others?
I don't mind a link. I don't mind external resources. To me they fall under the "see also" heading.
As far as articles in development, yes, sources should be quotes to allow fellow editors to check and recheck and so on, but once the article is formalized, all that should just go to the talk page.
Makes sense?
It would if the premises were correct. It is true that the point of an encyclopedia is to be authoritative. But it does not follow that encyclopedias do not list references. Most do, in fact. They may call it "further reading" or somesuch, but they're references.
Moreover, traditional encyclopedias assert authoritativeness by having known experts write the entries.
For example, Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on baseball includes the following "further reading" (written in paragraph form in EB):
* Lawrence Ritter and Donald Honig, The Image of Their Greatness: An Illustrated History of Baseball from 1900 to the Present, updated ed. (1984); * Lawrence S. Ritter (comp.), The Glory of Their Times: The Story of the Early Days of Baseball Told by the Men Who Played It, new ed. (1984). * Robert Peterson, Only the Ball Was White (1970, reprinted 1984). * David Quentin Voigt, Baseball, an Illustrated History (1987) * The Official Baseball Guide, The Sporting News * Official Baseball Register, The Sporting News * Joseph L. Reichler (ed.), The Baseball Encyclopedia, 7th rev. ed. (1988). * Joe Brinkman and Charlie Euchner, The Umpire's Handbook, rev. ed. (1987). * Bill James and John Dewan, Bill James Presents the Great American Baseball Stat Book, ed. by Geoff Beckman et al. (1987)
and is written by Jerome Holtzman, "Baseball columnist, Chicago Tribune. Elected to the Writers' Wing, National Baseball Hall of Fame, 1990. Coauthor of Three and Two; editor of No Cheering in the Press Box; Fielder's Choice."
Since Wikipedia cannot assert authoritativeness based on the entries being written by experts (that's the Nupedia project, more or less), it can only do so through listing references.
References other than newspaper articles should generally be preferred, but they're better than nothing.
--- The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
It would if the premises were correct. It is true that the point of an encyclopedia is to be authoritative. But it does not follow that encyclopedias do not list references. Most do, in fact. They may call it "further reading" or somesuch, but they're references.
Moreover, traditional encyclopedias assert authoritativeness by having known experts write the entries.
For example, Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on baseball includes the following "further reading" (written in paragraph form in EB):
- Lawrence Ritter and Donald Honig, The Image of Their Greatness:
An Illustrated History of Baseball from 1900 to the Present, updated ed. (1984);
- Lawrence S. Ritter (comp.), The Glory of Their Times: The Story
of the Early Days of Baseball Told by the Men Who Played It, new ed. (1984).
- Robert Peterson, Only the Ball Was White (1970, reprinted 1984).
- David Quentin Voigt, Baseball, an Illustrated History (1987)
- The Official Baseball Guide, The Sporting News
- Official Baseball Register, The Sporting News
- Joseph L. Reichler (ed.), The Baseball Encyclopedia, 7th rev.
ed. (1988).
- Joe Brinkman and Charlie Euchner, The Umpire's Handbook, rev. ed.
(1987).
- Bill James and John Dewan, Bill James Presents the Great American
Baseball Stat Book, ed. by Geoff Beckman et al. (1987)
and is written by Jerome Holtzman, "Baseball columnist, Chicago Tribune. Elected to the Writers' Wing, National Baseball Hall of Fame, 1990. Coauthor of Three and Two; editor of No Cheering in the Press Box; Fielder's Choice."
Since Wikipedia cannot assert authoritativeness based on the entries being written by experts (that's the Nupedia project, more or less), it can only do so through listing references.
References other than newspaper articles should generally be preferred, but they're better than nothing.
Ok, I hear you.
But then, do they need to be links? I think the reference should be listed as one might do in a research paper (do we have a reference style?), and include a link for convenience only.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
--- Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com wrote:
I think the reference should be listed as one might do in a research paper (do we have a reference style?), and include a link for convenience only.
Definitely. Links go bad all the time, especially newspaper links. References without author, title and date are close to useless.
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org