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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l