[Wikipedia-l] Cite your sources?

[Tom Parmenter]

|From: Axel Boldt <axelboldt at yahoo.com>
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
|Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 08:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
|
|
|--- Vicki Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org> wrote:
|
|> In general, I think this is a good use for Talk pages.
|
|I disagree: sources are a vital part of the article and should not be
|hidden away in an area that most readers will never find. I think of
|Talk as short term discussions aimed at improving an article, not as a
|depository of meta information. If all Talk pages are deleted tomorrow,
|the encyclopedia should  still be self-contained and complete.
|
|Sources are extremely useful information; it's impossible to evaluate
|material without sources. Why would we possibly hide that information
|from readers?
|
|Axel
|

If a book is heavily used, it should be listed under ==Further
Reading==.  Likewise, if a web site is important, it sould be given
under ==External Links==.  Depending on the value of the source, it
could also be given in the test of the article itself, if it's that
relevant.

On the other hand, it isn't a bad thing to list random, regular
sources like the 1911 britannica on the talk page for guidance of
future writers without being compulsive about it.