"Thomas Dalton" wrote
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here
- if you're suggesting
the quote could replace the source for verification purposes, that's
just asking for people to post fake quotes - that's not what you're
saying, is it?
Not at all. How do you get that? I'm not saying don't cite the source, I'm
saying quote from the source as well. The two sentences out of the webpage you actually
rely on, for example
A well written article should make it perfectly clear
what point is sourced from what citation without having to read the
source. Also, all the relevant information from the source should be
included in the article - that's the point of a source. So the quote
would be redundant.
It's not always just about 'information'.
Wikipedia's readers are not only academics, and we do not aim at academics. We aim at
a treatment superior to almost all journalism, but we do not assume the reader has the
academic resources available.
Because our articles are not academic papers.
True, but I still think the conventions are just as appropriate on
Wikipedia as they are in academia.
They are not. Because academics write for fellow academics, and we do not. Said that
already, I believe ...
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit
www.ntlworld.com/security for more information