379:, or risk end up losing content in any article just because one kept insufficient notes. The fact that these notes are collaborative, on a talk page of wikipedia, and may be challenged by others seems more reason to advise that one does keep one's references up to date, updating as one finds them. I'm also finding that some think that citing a different wikipedia article as an appropriate reference for claims is sufficient here. I think these issues need spelling out much more clearly in the guidelines or advice for editors as I have read them. Can I ask what people's views are on the general issues I raised here?
371:
should encourage people to reference material as they go along. I've arrived at this position after advising PhD students for many years and also after contributing to paper encyclopaedias. After a series of very early disasters, involving writing notes and not keeping a list of one's references easily to hand as one writes notes about them, I routinely advise people to add references as they add facts and claims to wikipedia. However, some have objected to this, and state that when one just planning out a possible article, one doesn't
22:
144:
without saying so. Not putting a notice , but doing likewise this is being done from Public domain sources, and is indeed legal, but it borderline in terms of ethics, non-encyclopedist in nature, and is taken outside WP as an indication of our lack of seriousness. When was there last a discussion of this? I try here because it is being ignred everywhere. Perhaps I should design a cateogry box, and use it///
143:
Encyclopedic standards include honesty. I have been observing several very common practices: Putting a notice that part of the article has has been copied from XXX, and not indicating what part
Putting a notice that part of the article has has been copied from XXX, and copying the whole thing intact,
324:
by an editor in an article I'm involved with that it is unnecessary to put quotation marks around quotations of public domain material so long as the public domain source is cited. Such plagiarism would result in a very poor grade in high school or college paper, but I'm having a rough time finding
300:
My view has always been that everyone is an editor. It is the responability of the person that would like to keep the material to assert the notability of the article subject. If the article does not do it well enough that the editor reading it is convinced, then it automatically represents a need
370:
about when to add references to a table that eventually people agreed might be a good idea to draw up with a view to partly resolving a series of edit-wars. My considered view is that, if one is being serious about one's endeavours in aiding wikipedia to become a serious encyclopaedia, then one
258:
OK, fine. Someone with the label "editor" thinks that this article "doesn't matter". He (or she) is entitled to his (or her) opinion. But why do I have any reason to think the "editor" has any interest in this area? If I didn't care about math or physics, maybe I'd mark the article on the
398:
I suspect you're preaching to the choir. My personal preference would be a change of process that would provide for completing the citations BEFORE drawing on them. I'd also like to see a mechanism to more vigourously protect against the deletion of citations (perhaps in the vein of
236:
This Forum seems to have come to the attention of the "Article
Validation" section of Knowledge (XXG). As I reviewed the section "Article Validation", there seems to be similar concerns to the ones here, but I couldn't find any organized discussion. So, I am putting a link here:
304:
Regarding the box having the editor's name in it, if you check history, the edit summary should show who it is that flagged it. Why should that matter though? If you simply go to the talk page and cite the notability, you are entitled to remove the tag at that point.
273:
Why should the editor's name be withheld? If this editor has a passion for squelching articles on a particular topic, then his/her bias might show through, and such nominations for "doesn't matter" should be discarded summarily, or at least
240:
for others to see. In the meantime, I am active in trying to develop some kind of encyclopedic standards format that is practical, and I will be here biweekly if not weekly. I continue to be active in working on this.
347:. It looked more like vociferous agreement. Yes, we need to show quotations as quotations. Yes, we need to attribute them (if only to anon). Yes we need to cite the secondary reference they're drawn from. See
282:
Nomination for such markings should be reviewed by an editorial panel. If 5 editors on a random panel of 10 agree that an article is questionable, perhaps only then should the article be nominated for
65:
60:
55:
48:
43:
38:
255:
I have a serious concern: a recent article I consulted had a bright blue box "An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines...".
207:
P.S. I was working on an communication model but it seemed quite confusing, even to myself, so I thought it was best to just remove it to a workspace on my user site for now.
221:
I've been working on items related to this project, I've just had nothing to say here. As far as I'm concerned the project is active, although not discussing much. (
101:
had a comment that went unaddressed for a month (looking at the edit history of this page). Is this project alive or dead?? Looks useful, but looks deceased to me. --
169:
366:
I'm a new member who happened here after searching for advice about a problem I have recently become involved with. There is a long-running dispute on
159:. I also think that it makes sense to investigate the approach taken by EOEarth it terms of standards, if they have it described elsewhere. `'
367:
198:
I haven't heard any negative responses, so I will proceed with opening up the quality management project based on the above discussion.
327:
Honesty, by properly indicating just what it is that is taken from a public domain source &, if it's the entire article, saying so.
111:
Seems to be inactive doesn't it. I've tagged it as such; if that doesn't bring folks out of the woodwork assume it's dead. --
343:
Does someone really need a policy to know that plagiarism isn't acceptable? I didn't quite get that from reading
77:
325:
any official policy that
Knowledge (XXG) might have on it. I do see here that the proposed standards advocate
348:
266:
Back to my point: the "editor" is entitled to his/her opinion, but I question two facets of
Knowledge (XXG):
407:
392:
355:
337:
309:
294:
245:
225:
211:
202:
180:
163:
130:
115:
105:
81:
351:. You'll note there is nothing that excludes public domain content from needing attribution of quotations.
260:
387:
333:
Knowledge (XXG) policy about quotation of PD sources? Thanks for any assistance you can provide. --
97:
Anybody home? There were new posts by another
Wikipedian today, but a three month gap before that.
291:
83:
404:
352:
177:
120:
I just joined. I will be coming here quite a bit, but the learning curve is quite steep, and
79:
21:
123:
it's taking a lot of time to familiarize myself with the project. But I'm no easy quitter.
403:
Granted that's all captured in the history, but it's hardly obvious to a casual reader.
380:
160:
112:
102:
306:
242:
222:
208:
199:
127:
286:
When used, the legend of the box should be changed to "editor has expressed...".
270:
Why should someone with the term "editor" get to establish this bright blue box?
173:
98:
334:
329:-- a standard with which I wholeheartedly agree. But can anyone point me to
401:
Previous versions of this article also drew on the following references:
170:
Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (proposals)/Archive#Encyclopedia of Earth
375:. My point is that of course, one doesn't have to, but one would be
238:
157:
Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (proposals)#Encyclopedia of Earth
84:
15:
251:
Proposal to peer-review nominations for editorial review
362:
When to reference - a plea for more guidance and rigour
344:
321:
156:
349:Knowledge (XXG):Attribution#How_to_cite_sources
263:as "doesnt satisfy MY notability guidelines".
232:Encyclopedic Standards and Article Validation
8:
93:knock knock-- this project alive or dead?
368:Talk:Second city of the United Kingdom
7:
194:Starting Quality Management Project
290:Thanks for your consideration....
14:
20:
320:I came here way of researching
106:21:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
316:Quoting public domain sources
203:15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
131:18:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
181:01:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
408:22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
356:22:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
164:23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
126:I'll be coming here a lot.
116:19:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
424:
310:15:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
295:13:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
246:20:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
393:17:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
377:strongly advised to do so
338:19:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
226:20:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
212:04:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
261:Lorentz transformation
148:Encyclopedia of Earth
217:Active, merely quiet
90:
89:
71:
70:
415:
390:
385:
384:
85:
35:
34:
24:
16:
423:
422:
418:
417:
416:
414:
413:
412:
388:
382:
381:
364:
318:
301:for discussion.
253:
234:
219:
196:
150:
141:
95:
86:
80:
29:
12:
11:
5:
421:
419:
411:
410:
363:
360:
359:
358:
345:the allegation
322:the allegation
317:
314:
313:
312:
302:
288:
287:
284:
276:
275:
274:peer-reviewed.
271:
252:
249:
233:
230:
218:
215:
195:
192:
190:
188:
187:
186:
185:
184:
183:
149:
146:
140:
137:
136:
135:
134:
133:
124:
121:
94:
91:
88:
87:
82:
78:
76:
73:
72:
69:
68:
63:
58:
52:
51:
46:
41:
31:
30:
25:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
420:
409:
406:
402:
397:
396:
395:
394:
391:
386:
378:
374:
369:
361:
357:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:
340:
339:
336:
332:
328:
323:
315:
311:
308:
303:
299:
298:
297:
296:
293:
285:
281:
280:
279:
272:
269:
268:
267:
264:
262:
256:
250:
248:
247:
244:
239:
231:
229:
227:
224:
216:
214:
213:
210:
205:
204:
201:
193:
191:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
166:
165:
162:
158:
154:
153:
152:
151:
147:
145:
138:
132:
129:
125:
122:
119:
118:
117:
114:
110:
109:
108:
107:
104:
100:
92:
75:
74:
67:
64:
62:
59:
57:
54:
53:
50:
47:
45:
42:
40:
37:
36:
33:
32:
28:
23:
18:
17:
400:
376:
372:
365:
330:
326:
319:
289:
277:
265:
257:
254:
235:
220:
206:
197:
189:
142:
96:
26:
405:LeadSongDog
353:LeadSongDog
278:Proposals:
155:Please see
139:I try again
99:User:Jmabel
383:DDStretch
66:Archive 6
61:Archive 5
56:Archive 4
49:Archive 3
44:Archive 2
39:Archive 1
113:kingboyk
103:Ling.Nut
27:Archives
373:have to
331:current
307:Slavlin
292:Harasty
243:Richiar
223:SEWilco
209:Richiar
200:Richiar
168:Now at
128:Richiar
389:(talk)
174:Jmabel
335:Yksin
161:mikka
283:talk
178:Talk
172:. -
228:)
176:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
