On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:55 PM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/11/3 David Richfield <davidrichfi...@gmail.com>: >> A tool which pops up asking for a URL, author and date would be a rich >> source of bad references. We should rather be looking at ways to get >> references to books and journal articles. Web references should be >> the exception rather than the rule, because the vast majority of >> websites are not WP:RS. > > Problem is a lot of books are rather questionable. However dead tree > worship means people generally ask fewer questions.
People should question book sources, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be encouraging people to find them and use them. > The reality is > that your average person is unlikely to access to journals and only > have books to hand on a narrow range of subjects. If you have the web to hand, you have Google Books and Google Scholar (which shows you which of the articles are full-text). > Under those > conditions the web is by far the most likely viable source of > citations. A much richer source of citations, true, and easy to use badly, but very hard to use well: it's easy to get rubbish sources off the web, but it takes experience and expertise to find good ones. -- David Richfield e^(ði)+1=0 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
