[Foundation-l] Re: Sources and sourceability

[Michael Snow]

SJ wrote:

>> When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into connection 
>> to people editing and adding contents - it must be seen as something 
>> separate - many people are not able to "separate" things themselves 
>> they will combine and make something different out of all this.
>
> What does this mean?  How can citations be separate from adding content?
> Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from; other 
> people can do nothing but guess.

Why does it matter where it came from? Except in cases where you're 
dealing with a primary source and it's essential to check the original, 
the choice of sources is just as subject to editing as the content. If I 
add content and cite a pathetically bad source, the source does not need 
to stay in the article even if it happens to be right (if it happens to 
be wrong and represents a significant point of view might be another 
matter). Other people can find other and often better sources even if 
they're unable to determine what the initial source was, and if the case 
involves a primary source then the information inherently points to 
where you need to look.

Many people don't seem to understand this and think there's some kind of 
rule that once a source has been used in the writing of an article, it 
must be cited or preserved in a References section for all time. Even 
normal scholarly practice doesn't require this (else probably most 
Wikipedia articles would need to cite other Wikipedia articles as 
references), and we in particular should be able to get past such 
limited ways of thinking. One of the virtues of our collaborative system 
is that there is very little need to try and divine the intent of an 
original author, and we needn't be beholden to that person in terms of 
choosing sources either.

--Michael Snow