[Wikipedia-l] Astrobiology encyclopedia and Wikipedia

[Chas Brown]

koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
> Ortolan88 wrote:
> >We have no guarantee that the entries will remain the same either.
> >The bioastropedia is an excellent web site, but we aren't going to
> >import their articles wholesale and leave them untouched forever, are
> >we?
> 
> Well, no, I didn't expect us to.  I guess the question is "at what 
> point have articles changed enough from the source that
> it's ok to remove the citation"?  I would (today, anyway) urge people 
> to leave the citations in and change "works cited" to
> "works consulted"--if for no other reason than that several notable 
> academics have been caught plagiarizing lately.

I recently noted that in the article on [[New Age]], there are several
quote lengthy direct quotes (with attribution and permissions), but
these quotes are 7 or 8 lengthy paragraphs long; and contain some POV
material (as well as some incorrect material, as noted in the wiki
commentary for the article).

What is the correct approach here? Summarize with attribution? Leave it
alone? The latter seems inconsistent with the spirit of wiki, the former
may result in a reduction of credibility by removing some referenced
source.

Cheers - Chas