Carcharoth wrote: > But this > feeds into my point about whether such articles should be brought to a > minimum standard, instead of roughly referenced along with a lot of > others ones being worked on at the same time, and then the people > doing this rough-and-ready referencing moving on to other articles? > > My standards would be to ensure minimum copyediting standards have > been met, that the birth year has been found and securely referenced, > and that a standalone biography (even if only a mini-biography from > who they work for, or a conference biography, or some form of press > release) is found and used as a reference. > But I don't think the issue will be resolved by more "guidelines". This is an interesting example where the web material is largely of the kind of self-validating, not really third-party stuff that can be problematic. (I don't think having the biography is problematic, but the critical approach is quite helpful here, in indicating what it should contain.) There is a great deal of point in being selective: much of academia has to be taken on similar terms, and I don't think we should slide too far into rejecting departmental home pages as references.
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l