koyaanisqatsi(a)nupedia.com
Ortolan88 wrote:
We have no guarantee that the entries will remain
the same either.
The bioastropedia is an excellent web site, but we aren't going to
import their articles wholesale and leave them untouched forever, are
we?
Well, no, I didn't expect us to. I guess the question is "at what
point have articles changed enough from the source that
it's ok to remove the citation"? I would (today, anyway) urge people
to leave the citations in and change "works cited" to
"works consulted"--if for no other reason than that several notable
academics have been caught plagiarizing lately.
I recently noted that in the article on [[New Age]], there are several
quote lengthy direct quotes (with attribution and permissions), but
these quotes are 7 or 8 lengthy paragraphs long; and contain some POV
material (as well as some incorrect material, as noted in the wiki
commentary for the article).
What is the correct approach here? Summarize with attribution? Leave it
alone? The latter seems inconsistent with the spirit of wiki, the former
may result in a reduction of credibility by removing some referenced
source.
Cheers - Chas