> I decided I hadn't reviewed a featured article candidate for a while > and Russell T Davies (writer of the Doctor Who reboot) was there. > Figured I'd give it a go. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_T_Davies > > I invite you to look, with reasonable care, at references 1 to 97. > > Now, not only are they from the same source but it would appear the > page numbers are almost all accounted for (although I don't know how > long the book is, but I'm willing to guess it's c.219 pages long). And > the pages are ref'd in pretty much book order. > > In short, were I Aldridge & Murray I think I would be feeling pretty > hard done by at this point. > > I should say, I don't have the book and that would be key before > making a point too vehemently. Nevertheless, I wonder if we have a > policy/guideline on appropriate levels of source mining? > > I have another interest in this. I recently purchased a book on WWI. > The centenary is coming up in 2014 and there is a desire to get our > WWI articles in good shape before then. I intend to use the book > extensively but I am anxious about what is acceptable. > > Bodnotbod
Provided only facts from the book are used there is no basis for a complaint unless text is copied, copyright violation, or the source is not credited, plagiarism. Such use of a source, however, is poor for encyclopedic purposes because it incorporates into our article the point of view, and possibly other problems that the source has. Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
