4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 38:
Line 38: + + + + +
Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application? (view source)
Revision as of 13:51, April 23, 2007
, 13:51, April 23, 2007→No
== No ==
== No ==
Nope, too hard. And trying to define "acceptable references/unacceptable references" tends to encourage disputes.
The '''important thing''' about a reference is that the reader should be able to trace where the item came from, and enough information should be provided so that readers can judge for themselves whether ''they'' trust the reference.
(That doesn't mean no guidelines at all. I was recently involved in an issue on Wikipedia in which there was a dispute over sourcing an item—the text of some graffiti in Barrington Hall on the Berkeley campus—which was there solely on an editor's personal recollection. After the editor argued for many days that no source was required, and losing the argument, suddenly a new blog appeared on the Web which quoted the exact list of graffiti with the exact wording that the editor had wanted to have in the article... as well as saying how important those graffiti were and that they were essential to any account of Barrington Hall's history. That editor then immediately put the material back, citing the blog as a reliable source both for the content of the graffiti and their importance. Much discussion ensued...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)