Regarding references: I generally only list multiple references when dealing with a highly contentious issue. It's a habit developed on the Straight Dope Message Board where the word "Cite?" can strike fear into the heart of any polemicist. As for articles that are largely factually based (geography, for example) I don't usually see the need, unless, at the outside, I'm exposing some rare and little-known fact. Basically, any fact that someone would be highly inclined to question is a fact I'm gonna put a citation for.
Also, Mav suggested that I apply for Admin status, so I'll do that now. Would someone also please explain what responsibilities come with this?
Matt McLauchlin (Montrealais) Montreal, Quebec
Matt M. wrote:
Also, Mav suggested that I apply for Admin status, so I'll do that now.
and not too soon! you've certainly been around for long enough, in fact I thought you were an admin already ;-)
Would someone also please explain what responsibilities come with this?
delete junk pages, keep the flow of Votes For Deletion in check (that's a pain in the ****, I don't do that much), keep an eye on vandals (be suspicious of IPs and new names, basically, and diff their edits. sad way to phrase it, but true. On the plus side, I get *very* pleasant surprises when I see all the great material people add). mediate edit wars if you've the stomach for it
Matt McLauchlin (Montrealais) Montreal, Quebec
Also, Mav suggested that I apply for Admin status, so I'll do that now.
and not too soon! you've certainly been around for long enough, in fact I thought you were an admin already ;-)
He is now.
--- tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
Matt M. wrote:
Would someone also please explain what responsibilities come with this?
delete junk pages, keep the flow of Votes For Deletion in check (that's a pain in the ****, I don't do that much), keep an eye on vandals (be suspicious of IPs and new names, basically, and diff their edits. sad way to phrase it, but true. On the plus side, I get *very* pleasant surprises when I see all the great material people add).
I'd prefer if we kept the function of "sysop" separate from the above described function of "vandalism protection". While vandalism protection clearly requires sysop privileges, not every sysop is required to engage in vandalism protection. Otherwise, we can't complain if many people don't want to be sysops.
mediate edit wars if you've the stomach for it
Edit war mediation seems to be unrelated to sysop status.
In my mind, the only responsibilities that come with sysophood are to follow the policies related to deleting and protecting pages and blocking users, especially not to use those features in content fights. And don't use the direct SQL database search if you don't know what you're doing.
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
Regarding references:
Just a good idea to make a habit of listing references. It has the added value of providing additional recourses to our readers regardless of the established quality of the information.
Fred
From: "Matt M." matt_mcl@sympatico.ca Reply-To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 11:46:34 -0400 To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] references, admin request
Regarding references: I generally only list multiple references when dealing with a highly contentious issue. It's a habit developed on the Straight Dope Message Board where the word "Cite?" can strike fear into the heart of any polemicist. As for articles that are largely factually based (geography, for example) I don't usually see the need, unless, at the outside, I'm exposing some rare and little-known fact. Basically, any fact that someone would be highly inclined to question is a fact I'm gonna put a citation for.
Also, Mav suggested that I apply for Admin status, so I'll do that now. Would someone also please explain what responsibilities come with this?
Matt McLauchlin (Montrealais) Montreal, Quebec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Matt M. wrote:
Regarding references: I generally only list multiple references when dealing with a highly contentious issue. It's a habit developed on the Straight Dope Message Board where the word "Cite?" can strike fear into the heart of any polemicist. As for articles that are largely factually based (geography, for example) I don't usually see the need, unless, at the outside, I'm exposing some rare and little-known fact. Basically, any fact that someone would be highly inclined to question is a fact I'm gonna put a citation for.
There is a second reason for citing references even in non-controversial subjects. There is always a practical limit to how much can be put into an encyclopedia article, or there may be potential copyright or trademark violation issues. Where a reader has found a Wikipedia article to be absolutely scintillating he may feel inspired to look more deeply into the subject. Providing references is then a service to the reader. In such circumstances providing references may not be a necessity but it should still be strongly encouraged.
Eclecticology
At 10:23 12/04/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Matt M. wrote:
Regarding references: I generally only list multiple references when dealing with a highly contentious issue. It's a habit developed on the Straight Dope Message Board where the word "Cite?" can strike fear into the heart of any polemicist. As for articles that are largely factually based (geography, for example) I don't usually see the need, unless, at the outside, I'm exposing some rare and little-known fact. Basically, any fact that someone would be highly inclined to question is a fact I'm gonna put a citation for.
There is a second reason for citing references even in non-controversial subjects. There is always a practical limit to how much can be put into an encyclopedia article, or there may be potential copyright or trademark violation issues. Where a reader has found a Wikipedia article to be absolutely scintillating he may feel inspired to look more deeply into the subject. Providing references is then a service to the reader. In such circumstances providing references may not be a necessity but it should still be strongly encouraged.
If by "references" we mean "further reading" (something which will compliment and expand upon the article), then yes, let's have more of them please. But if we mean "the sources I have used to write the article" (which is my understanding of what "references" are), then I think it's a bad idea to always provide them. On very obscure or controversial stuff, of course sources have to be cited, but for info that is easily verifiable in any one of hundreds of sources (and most of the article I work on are made up of nothing more than this sort of info), I don't see the point.
In short, I think Montréalais approach to citations in the right one.
lp (camembert) WikiKarma: [[Gary Hume]]
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org