[Foundation-l] Enforcing WP:CITE the Soi case

Fri Dec 2 19:16:10 UTC 2005

Hoi,
Re-iterating what has been said does not make for understanding. By 
being inflexible and apparently not understanding what concerns there 
are on the other end of an issue. You entrench your position.

I will tell you why we are different. We are different because we are 
not a professionally produced publication. We do not have the pretence 
that we know it all. We invite everyone to contribute and these other 
publications do not. When you, and here I repeat myself, do not care for 
the people who have never cited anything and make them out to be wrong 
as a consequence, you do not understand why we are different.

Again, citations have their place but do not quote your sources relating 
subjects like religion because they are all hopelessly point of view. 
The only thing you can achieve there is that you show that someone 
published a point of view. Citations and sources are a double edged 
sword, they either allow you to clear up disputes or they allow you to 
destroy what differentiates Wikipedia from these "normal published 
textbooks, including encyclopaedias".

So "obviously" you must be right because you quotes your source.. Then 
again if this is the case, what did you add to the discussion ? And what 
makes your source the authority that makes the difference ?

Thanks,
    GerardM

Brian wrote:
> As Danny has repeatedly mentioned, normal published textbooks, 
> including encyclopedias, have every single fact cited and checked 
> before the publisher will go on with printing the book. These 
> citations aren't made public, but they are done, nonetheless. Why 
> should we be any different? This doesn't necessarily mean putting 1000 
> sources in the reference section. There are other options we can 
> consider, or new ways of citing content online, that are different 
> from the methods used in printed books.
>
> Jim wrote:
>
>> On 12/2/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>>>>> Having citations is a good thing but please realise that it is best
>>>>>> used when controversies arise.
>>>>>>         
>>>>> SJ wrote:
>>>>> Having citations is fundamental to being a good reference work.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is *not* ( I say it again ) related to deletion policy.
>>>>>       
>>> Walter van Kalken wrote:
>>>   
>>>> Yes SJ you will be able to handle it in a correct matter and so will
>>>> many other wikipedians.
>>>>     
>>
>>
>> The policy says: "The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and 
>> reliable
>> encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable 
>> resource, so
>> editors should cite credible
>> sources<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources>so that
>> their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors."
>>
>> I see no problem with citing to "the experience of anyone in the 
>> society."
>> And although a controversy may arise - usually something so common 
>> will have
>> citations available somewhere and smart people will be able to find 
>> them -
>> as they did here. If not, as someone else said - appeal to common sense.
>>
>> Jim 