Board Thread:Series general discussion/@comment-18014300-20170717032044/@comment-18014300-20170724093210: Difference between revisions
imported>Sol Pacificus No edit summary |
imported>Sol Pacificus No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
This misses my proposal which is that we should not be taking from Wikipedia ''ever'' exactly because of the points you made, but we have a system where we allow for basic exceptions for that, and I believe that if we are allowing such exceptions, we should be clarifying that to readers and be honest about it so they don't confuse the information as coming from AC sources. Doing otherwise is a bit deceptive. | This misses my proposal which is that we should not be taking from Wikipedia ''ever'' exactly because of the points you made, but we have a system where we allow for basic exceptions for that, and I believe that if we are allowing such exceptions, we should be clarifying that to readers and be honest about it so they don't confuse the information as coming from AC sources. Doing otherwise is a bit deceptive. | ||
Your latter point that attributing to Wikipedia is unreliable because information is subject to change without us knowing due to its anyone can edit nature is particularly perplexing when you | Your latter point that attributing to Wikipedia is unreliable because information is subject to change without us knowing due to its anyone-can-edit nature is particularly perplexing when you juxtapose that with your endorsement of the current system. Under the current system, we're doing exactly just that: taking information directly off of Wikipedia even though its information is unreliable and subject to change without us knowing. | ||
Revision as of 11:46, 24 July 2017
Jasca Ducato wrote: I fully understood your proposal and I don't think it is preferable or necessary. {{WP-REAL}} is, in my eyes, sufficient.
{{WP-REAL}} is not relevant to sourcing issues. It's not a marker to indicate when information is taken from non-AC sources and is only an external link to Wikipedia for information on the real-world equivalent.
Allow me to reiterate that your initial response made me think that you think my point is that it is fine to take from Wikipedia and thus, cite to it, hence why you pointed out Wikipedia is not a reliable source and also that information from it is subject to change without us doing.
This misses my proposal which is that we should not be taking from Wikipedia ever exactly because of the points you made, but we have a system where we allow for basic exceptions for that, and I believe that if we are allowing such exceptions, we should be clarifying that to readers and be honest about it so they don't confuse the information as coming from AC sources. Doing otherwise is a bit deceptive.
Your latter point that attributing to Wikipedia is unreliable because information is subject to change without us knowing due to its anyone-can-edit nature is particularly perplexing when you juxtapose that with your endorsement of the current system. Under the current system, we're doing exactly just that: taking information directly off of Wikipedia even though its information is unreliable and subject to change without us knowing.