That's exactly what I'm getting at. The wikipedia should be packed with
clickable citations.The reason why I've always loved encyclopedias so much
is the quality of the information, and the impartial manner in which it was
presented. Citations (particularly linkable) bring with them evidence for
belief, and an option for the reader to learn further, investigate for
themselves (by clicking on it). A basic of polite discourse (and a policy in
my debate club) was to accept another's argument so long as it is logical,
and to accept their premise so long as you could not disprove it (like thru
a citation). What I Don't like about the wikipedia is when the truth (or a
way of interpreting it) is removed from an article, regardless of the
quality of citation, due to overriding majority POV. My suggestions are
meant to address that. JackLynch


>On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Rick wrote:

>Wikipedia is not a list of citations.
>
>RickK
>Ira Stoll wrote:
>
>*only replace text that you know to be wrong (inaccurate), and replace it
>with something that has a citation to back it up. If they have a reasonable
>difference, based on citation, allow both POV to be presented
>
>I don't understand your POV, Rick. Are you saying that we should have _no_
>citations or mention of references so readers can verify facts or
>quotations?
>If so, wouldn't that undermine the credibility of Wikipedia?

>Geoff

_________________________________________________________________
Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up ? fast & reliable Internet access with prime
features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l