[WikiEN-l] Idealism

[stevertigo]

--- Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> If you're saying "Wikipedia articles should have a reference for every
> statement of fact, and none of those references should be Wikipedia",
> then yes, that goes without saying.

"Yes"?? Thats citenazism! Its usefulness is dubious outside of scratching libel 
out of biographies. When did this happen? How would using this policy have affected 
Wikipedia's growth from its humble beginnings when Nupedia sucked down a quarter mil?
How are "good writers" supposed to rephrase in an explanatory way what technocrats 
plop down as fact?

> What do you mean by a)? Do you mean that people who perform research
> using Wikipedia as a base should cite it? 

No. I meant simply that people follow different modes of editing, one of which 
can be generally called "research."

> we would not want to be cited in an academic journal. 

We dont?

> My interpretation of IAR is basically a restatement of ...

And therefore a redundancy, and therefore a confusing fork of...
a policy which is sharply in contrast with... current topics of discussion.

-SV


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com