On Jan 5, 2013 12:51 AM, "George Herbert" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:05 AM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4 January 2013 17:56, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> 1a. Do *not* pick a source that you have a particularly close personal or > >> emotional connection to: it is not good to start with your own research, > >> your supervisor's or colleague's research, a project of yours or that you're > >> involved with, a nationalist/political/religious subject you feel strongly > >> about, the history of your own family, etc. > > > > > > This can be a problem in that people will become interested first in > > fixing something they think is wrong because they know about it. I do > > realise all the steps from that to here, and that a list of > > instructions pretty much won't be read. > > Along the lines of noneuclidian geometry... > > What if we experiment (at least conceptually) with inverting that > instruction? Encourage people to write on subjects they know... > > Normal people won't be so much of an expert that using their own > professional or academic work as a reference is even applicable. > > Actual experts, we can include a "Please cite your sources, rather > than your own work, thanks!" and leave it at that. > > Actual experts who fail to heed that are a problem, but a much smaller > and easier to communicate with and explain problem than the no-newbies > one. > . >
Please resubmit this suggestion after three hours of AfC work > > -- > -george william herbert > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
