This works in a peer reviewed system. As we've seen in this case, however, there is only accidental oversight and people will certainly take advantage of this to give an article in which they have a vested interest the vestige of authority.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:47 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
"as per the sources cited here" is exactly the way to do it-- the usual academic equivalent is "per X, and the references cited therein". Something should certainly be stated, not just be implied. This might be a good way of documenting lists, where the reasons for the individual items are in the articles on the items.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
wrote:
Of course! What's unfortunate is that some people are more
comfortable
with hard rules than with reasonableness. There are times when
citing
another Wikipedia article is perfectly appropriate.
Citing a particular revision, perhaps - the live article is too moving a target. And it should only be done as a 'per the sources cited here' way - the Wikipedia article itself is not the reliable source, but perhaps it might be worthwhile on occasion to refer to the set of references in an article collectively.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l