Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?
It seems that many of the science topics are only using PoV websites for sources instead of actual publications and peer reviewed research papers. When scientists write science publications they cite peer reviewed papers and published works only when dealing with the research aspect of the science. When dealing with the application they will sometimes use a website to better illustrate the application of the method. When a quote is used the context of the quote is secondary to the research and used to support the topic, not the other way around.
In doing so the science based topics would have a structure like below -
- Description and Mechanisms of Topic
- Method and Experimentation
- Supporting Quotes
- Criticisms of Research
- Criticism Evidence
This can be used for students to learn and also provide opposing evidence so that both sides can be better informed.
Should we follow this method, at conservapedia?
Yes
--TimS 09:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes & No
In theory it would be better that way, but sources like that are hard to find, have not always been put on the internet at all, or are protected (only accessible from universities or with a password).
In addition many of those articles are incomprehensible to just about everyone, except for specialists in that field.
- I can understand that, application is where other sources could be cited for the layman. Pubmed and other science journals are pretty easy to use and link to. Personaly I see this as a way of making sure that people will only edit what they have taken the time out to understand.--TimS 09:42, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, articles from accessible science journals should be included as often as possible, I agree.
I also propose a rule that in the case of quotes, demands a link to a text in which the entire quote and its original context are included, to avoid quote mining or misinterpretations.
- I would agree as well. The quote mining thing is an issue. If you are using a quote from Darwin's book then link to the book online not some website that gives a POV without a link to the book.
Perhaps just the structure for science articles should be used, that way we could distinguish the difference between science articles and philosophical POV articles?--TimS 09:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
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...) 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"[#]" won't do, but "The creationist website so-and-so says "Darwin was wrong"[#], while scientific journal so-and-so says "Darwin was right"[#]" is OK. Dpbsmith 09:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)