4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 43:
Line 43: + +
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 13:57, April 23, 2007
, 13:57, April 23, 2007→No
(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)
(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)
Just in case this whole discussion might possibly about, um, let's say evolution versus creationism, there's nothing wrong with citing creationist websites as long as it's obvious to the reader what they are... and that the article is intellectually honest. Darwin was wrong"<sup>[#]</sup>" won't do, but "The creationist website so-and-so says "Darwin was wrong"<sup>[#]</sup>, while scientific journal so-and-so says "Darwin was right"<sup>[#]</sup>" is OK. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)