On 8/24/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
"Yes"?? Thats citenazism! Its usefulness is
dubious outside of scratching libel
out of biographies. When did this happen? How would using this policy have affected
Wikipedia's growth from its humble beginnings when Nupedia sucked down a quarter
mil?
How are "good writers" supposed to rephrase in an explanatory way what
technocrats
plop down as fact?
Can I remind you the thread topic is "idealism"? :) Put it this way:
if there was an article where every statement of fact *was* cited,
would that be a good thing or a bad thing? A good thing, right? That
doesn't mean that every other article is a failure - we haven't
discussed minimum standards yet.
No. I meant simply that people follow different modes
of editing, one of which
can be generally called "research."
Ok, this is a new way of thinking to me - you're distinguishing
between those who do the research and add it, and the wordsmithers who
just shuffle around material that's already there?
we would not
want to be cited in an academic journal.
We dont?
We don't have any original ideas, and we don't claim that anything is
truer than the citation linked to it. Why would you cite us?
Steve