[WikiEN-l] Citationgate: expertise and verifiability

[David Russell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mak wrote:
> I've just attempted to explain why having inline citations can be
> misleading. If a fact is widely agreed on, and you ascribe it to a single
> source or author, it makes it seem as though that person is the sole
> proponent of that idea, when in fact pretty much everyone in the field is in
> agreement.
> 
> If you look at [[Dido and Aeneas]] you will see that it does cite it's
> sources. In the oh-so-cryptically named "References" section. It does not
> have inline citations because when I wrote the majority of the article, I
> was 1) brand new 2) inline citations had not become all the rage 3) *it
> doesn't contain controversial assertions. No one has challenged a single
> fact in the article. If you know anything about either the work or Purcell
> or English Baroque music, you probably won't challenge any of the article's
> assertions because they are *not* controversial.

Would it be all that hard to provide a specific page reference as a
footnote. e.g. (hypothetical example) <ref>See, for example, J. Doe
/Origins of Somethingorother/ p.29, J. Bloggs /Somethingorother
explained p.60</ref>.</ref>? And there is no need to cite a source after
every fact - after every paragraph or subtopic would be fine. But no
citations is unlikely to result in a successful GA review, at least
unless/until the proposed changes to the GA criteria are accepted.

Cynical

David Russell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFHXgLg8fvtQYQevcRAo9bAJ9ha4FZrJuwiAoA8L9Xc5GBQ9CV1wCfUUV3
mcelXTxNJ+zJlCXyW2rH0u0=
=kumF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----