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)