1,129
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: + + +
Debate:Is there a problem with simply copying content from other sites? (view source)
Revision as of 23:12, July 11, 2007
, 23:12, July 11, 2007→No: a response.
<references/>
<references/>
: In copying from public domain works that are secondary sources of information, it still lacks references to primary sources of information. For example, for [[Bangust]], http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b2/bangust-i.htm is a secondary source of information. It was not eye witness accounts but rather an accumulation of them. There are many statements made in there that are pulled from primary sources that are not attributed and the secondary source itself is not a verifiable reference. For those, you need to go to primary sources such as http://www.bangust.com/ . With this massive copy and paste effort underway, this attention to primary sources is being lost. Ultimately, it will take more time to clean up this (adding links to legal terms, finding references for statements made in military histories) than it would have been just to sit down and write it in the first place.
: Another point to be made is that if Conservapedia is striving to be the source of information for people to go to, quality can never take a secondary position to quantity. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:12, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
==Yes==
==Yes==