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.
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
On 11/01/11 4:43 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cite4wiki/ (in wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki )
right click and paste in the article. Easier than that can't be ;)
The newbie still has to find out from somewhere that he should
Hi,
Making referencing easier on Wikipedia with optional tools is a good thing,
but there is a parallel activity of educating old hands to be aware that
there is no requirement or policy for ref tags to be used in an article. If
a new user wishes to stick sources as plain text at the bottom of an
there is no requirement or policy for ref tags to be used in an article. If
a new user wishes to stick sources as plain text at the bottom of an
article, this is not actually a failure against the manual of style or our
verification policy.
This may be true, but it is a policy that an
My guess about how to go about doing that would be to write up the
documentation for how to use the relevant parts of the API for this
specific purpose. I think it would not be possible to give a solution that
worked for everyone because each external website would have a different
database
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 6:57 PM, David Richfield
davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote:
[Suggestion to encourage other website to generate pastable citation code]
I like it a lot! How do we go about promoting this idea?
I dont like it.
Websites should provide citations as COinS, or another
On 3 November 2011 09:26, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
We could create a zotero plugin which allows the ref to be added to
the end of paragraph.
We could go even further and integrate mediawiki and a zotero server
so that Wikipedia can use named refs throughout.
Oh yes please!
On 11/02/11 2:32 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 2 November 2011 21:28, Nathannawr...@gmail.com wrote:
To explain what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:QUICKREF
YES. We need this horribly urgently.
It should also pop up when someone clicks on a [citation needed] tag
- that's a blue
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 November 2011 09:26, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
We could create a zotero plugin which allows the ref to be added to
the end of paragraph.
We could go even further and integrate mediawiki and a zotero
Well, no newbie will wake up and say: I want to place references in
Wikipedia articles today - they do because one of us asked them to do. And
all (maybe not all but most of) us know the software, and don't cost more
of our time ask them to use it. In fact a message explaining how to use
the
2011/11/3 David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com:
This should be kept in mind (particularly for bot design) when many new
articles such as biographies are *incorrectly* tagged for speedy deletion
or as unsourced when sources are present in the article, they just do not
use the citation
On 3 November 2011 09:31, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Also can the expression citation needed be changed to something that
is more inviting to newbies, like Please add citation?
We may be late for that - citation needed is entering English.
- d.
On 3 November 2011 09:45, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, no newbie will wake up and say: I want to place references in
Wikipedia articles today - they do because one of us asked them to do. And
all (maybe not all but most of) us know the software, and don't cost more
of our
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 21:41, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I knew it looked so obvious someone must've already tried to do it.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ProveIt.jpg and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ProveIt_GT. This is a GUI reference
adding interface that shows up while
On 11/02/11 11:27 PM, David Richfield wrote:
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,
Tom's point on lag is an important consideration, I tend to use tools such
as greasemonkey (see the wiki citation generator direct from Worldcat
entries - http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/59173 - Google, The
Guardian and others also available) and my local scripts using iMacro to
scrape key
On 11/02/11 2:11 PM, Nathan wrote:
A button or link that says Add a reference? that brings up a box
with several lines, labelled URL Source Author Date. Click
Ok and the reference is inserted, no ref syntax or other ugly
interface necessary.
Put it automatically at the end of a paragraph or
On 10/31/11 1:31 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
For me, the most common reason why an edit click is not followed by a
save is because I end up not having the time to complete the work, or
the edit I had in mind becomes more complicated than I thought
(sometimes the latter partly explains the
On 11/03/11 2:49 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 3 November 2011 09:31, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
Also can the expression citation needed be changed to something that
is more inviting to newbies, like Please add citation?
We may be late for that - citation needed is entering English.
On 3 November 2011 10:47, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 11/03/11 2:49 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 3 November 2011 09:31, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
Also can the expression citation needed be changed to something that
is more inviting to newbies, like Please add
This demands far too much of newbies. We can sometimes be very
cult-like in our demand for references and sources.
Verifiability is central to Wikipedia, and it should not be otherwise.
If we have editors who do not understand what a reliable source is, they
need to be educated. If they don't
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
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
On Thursday, November 3, 2011, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:55 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Problem is a lot of books are rather questionable. However dead tree
worship means people generally ask fewer questions.
People should question book
On 3 November 2011 12:22, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
Perhaps this could be part of the article feedback tool: is this article
missing a source? could you tell us what it is? - this would automatically
dump a new section on the talk page with whatever they type in, along with
a
It would be handy to have sites usable as references build-in code for
easy Wikipedia citations, but it seems pretty unlikely that such an
effort will ever recruit enough sites to be really useful. A
greasemonkey script of some sort would be easier and would allow users
basically the same
On 3 November 2011 12:53, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I
wish we didn't always have to dispense with this tired argument that
making editing easier will inundate the projects with idiots. Easy and
open editing is the ethos that built the whole project.
Yes. All arguments of this form are
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I wish we didn't always have to dispense with this tired argument that
making editing easier will inundate the projects with idiots. Easy and
open editing is the ethos that built the whole project.
I just want to point out that I
On 3 November 2011 12:27, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Backlogs as a concern translate directly to newbies are inherently a
problem.
I don't get the point being made here, I would have thought that backlogs
are a good way to attract new editors into teamworking and community.
On 3 November 2011 13:27, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
On 3 November 2011 12:27, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Backlogs as a concern translate directly to newbies are inherently a
problem.
I don't get the point being made here,
People who say But x would lead to a backlog! as a
Hi,
as mentioned in last week's announcement of the September 2011
Wikimedia Foundation report, this time we published a separate
Highlights summary, combining excerpts from the general report and
the engineering report. It's an experiment, a format which might be
useful for those who might find
You know it would in most cases have been considered an act of good
faith to mention your long standing antipathy to wikipedia. But
perhaps I'm just old fashioned.
I'm sorry about that - I assumed everyone knew who 'Peter Damian' was.
I don't understand what you mean about 'antipathy to
What license(s) will the book be released under?
MZMcBride
Very funny :)
I have just completed my book on Scotus, which will be submitted to
the Catholic University Assocation Press next week. Assuming it gets
through their lengthy approval process,it will be published under
whatever
From the editors: A call for contributors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-10-24/From_the_editors
Opinion essay: There is a deadline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-10-24/Opinion_essay
Interview: Contracting for the Foundation
Opinion essay: The monster under the rug
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-10-31/Opinion_essay
Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found
lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified
I don't think simple text or link changes will really do the trick. I think
popup bubbles could be more successful.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
David Gerard, 31/10/2011 12:29:
I’ve been into Wikipedia for several years, and all my friends
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Peter Damian
peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
If you ask why, I reply that no method has yet been devised
to give attribution to the author of a work in a way that advances
their career. I will earn little or no money from either work, I
imagine. Note that
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:49 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 November 2011 21:41, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I knew it looked so obvious someone must've already tried to do it.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ProveIt.jpg and
39 matches
Mail list logo
