[Foundation-l] Re: Sources and sourceability

[Michael Snow]

Brian wrote:

> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> On the contrary, any published books, such as.... Encyclopaedia 
> Britannica, has every single one of the its facts checked against each 
> individual source. This is a requirement of the publisher, and of the 
> company. They don't make their sources public, so we have to trust 
> them, but because they have checked each fact, it is usually alright 
> to trust them. We, on the other hand, by default are accepting new 
> information without any sources.

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear. I was addressing the separability of 
citations from content, but I wasn't suggesting removing source 
citations unless you're replacing them with better sources.

--Michael Snow