[WikiEN-l] SOS -- Save Our Sources

[Thomas Dalton]

> Well, no. This thread is about disappearing sources, no? Having verbatim what is being referred to could help:
>
> (a) in replacing a source by a close equivalent;
> (b) in localising exactly what point is being made, so that further sources can be added;
> (c) in not needing to go to a library that was available;
> (d) for the billions who don't have a handy academic library, not leaving them out in the cold with a mere reference.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here - if you're suggesting
the quote could replace the source for verification purposes, that's
just asking for people to post fake quotes - that's not what you're
saying, is it? A well written article should make it perfectly clear
what point is sourced from what citation without having to read the
source. Also, all the relevant information from the source should be
included in the article - that's the point of a source. So the quote
would be redundant.

> Wikipedia's readers are not only academics, and we do not aim at academics. We aim at a treatment superior to almost all journalism, but we do not assume the reader has the academic resources available.

> Because our articles are not academic papers.

True, but I still think the conventions are just as appropriate on
Wikipedia as they are in academia.