686
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 51:
Line 51: + +
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 14:17, April 23, 2007
, 14:17, April 23, 2007→No
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)
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)
:Good point but it seems the issue we are having is the substantiation of claims. The POV issue is the problem that we are finding on many of the pages here. By having the citations as accurate as the science it would reduce the POV and provide an objective stance to the reader. Right now many of the science based articles on this site could not be used by a student to pass any science exams since they are riddled with POV and quote mines without providing an accurate description of the science.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:17, 23 April 2007 (EDT)