Of course.
But Stan is saying that cites are equal to standard reference works. A
well-known fact about the Japanese language may be written in a book
about cats, and it should be cited if used, but that doesn't mean it's
a standard reference work.
Mark
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 23:21:11 +0000, Tomer Chachamu <the.r3m0t(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:40:05 -0700, Mark Williamson
<node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think a very important issue here is whether to
add cites to
articles that we don't know what sources were used.
If I wrote the entire text of [[Japanese language]] (which I didn't,
this is just an example), without a cite, it would be a very horrible
thing in my mind if somebody added a cite for a book I'd never even
heard of. It's simply not accurate, and in some cases the book may not
even be a good resource.
Whenever somebody adds a random cite to an article written mostly or
entirely by me, I remove it unless I actually DID use that source.
It's very irritating to have people doing that, almost like bees, who
while they make honey also tend to annoy people.
Hmm. If something is common knowledge to specialists in the field
(sounds contradictory, I know) then any reliable cite documenting this
will do, not just the one you've used.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l