I think this is an excellent idea, although, to be
fair, the 'fact' that the earth is round is not
completly undisputed ;)
Mark
--- Fredrik Johansson <fredrik.johansson(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Regarding the references tab, I coincidentally
posted a similar idea
to WP:VP a few days ago. My idea differs slightly,
in that I think it
would be better if the reference page was not
automatically generated
from inline footnotes. Here's the text I posted on
WP:VP:
----
I think that in addition to a Talk: page for each
article, there
should be a References: page. With the current talk
of referencing
every fact in Wikipedia (which is a great idea),
this seems like the
only solution to me. Adding notes and inline links
everywhere in
articles only adds clutter, especially if the
information about a
reference is to include more than just a link.
My idea for the References: page is that it could
mirror the section
structure of the main article. The references page
could then include
prose, such as for example, "The fact that X is Y
given in the first
paragraph of this section is based on Foo (1990),
pages 800-803, and
supported by Bar (1992), page 456."
This way references can be provided in a way that is
easier to
interpret for the reader, more information about the
references can be
provided (since there's no cluttering of the
articles), and editing
becomes easier than with footnotes.
The link to the "References" page should be next to
the "Article" and
"Discussion" links. This would probably be easy to
implement in the
software.
By the way, another argument for this is that
in-article references
IMO break the excellent philosphy employed by
Wikipedia that article
content should be separated from discussion about
articles. Though not
discussion, references like discussion is not
information about the
subject but meta-information. ("further reading"
bibliography
sections, just like external links, should however
still be provided
in the main article.)
Another thing is that users could be allowed to sign
with their names
on the references page. That way, when a published
reference work is
not available, a user could sign to assert the
validity of
information. That way, information can be judged
based on the
credentials of that user. This is not different from
looking up who
added a piece of information using the page history,
but more
convenient since many articles have several pages of
revision history
listing, and users could then add more justification
than there is
room for in edit summaries.
Just to clarify, this does not mean that discussion
of sources should
be removed from articles entirely. Discussion of
sources in the case
where facts are disputed (outside of Wikipedia, that
is) is of course
relevant. But for undisputed facts, we already write
"the Earth is
round", not "according to NASA, the Earth is round".
--
Fredrik Johansson
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around