On 8/24/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Ideally, Wikipedia should be developed to the point
where
1) it is the canonical reference resource on the web.
2) a) such that articles reference other articles as sources
for the current discussion, or
b) articles should only reference outside sources and
never other articles.
If you're saying "Wikipedia articles should have a reference for every
statement of fact, and none of those references should be Wikipedia",
then yes, that goes without saying.
Accordingly there is some disparity between those who think Wikipedia
a) should be well cited by its researchers.
b) should be well written by its editors.
...where neither is mutually exclusive and neither has "official" status.
What do you mean by a)? Do you mean that people who perform research
using Wikipedia as a base should cite it? For any serious research,
that's not true - we would not want to be cited in an academic
journal. Or do you mean by "well cited" the articles should have lots
of references? I just don't quite get you.
policy. A canonical example of this was IAR, which was
basically a loophole which
basically claimed itself to be above even NPOV and CIVIL.
My interpretation of IAR is basically a restatement of Be Bold: "Feel
free to perform any good-faith action once, with disregard for all
existing policy and process, if you think it will help Wikipedia
achieve its mission". Anyone who thinks IAR means "you have a license
to do whatever the fuck you want, and anyone who tries to stop you is
a policy nazi" is just dreaming.
Steve