About: World War II Wiki talk:Reliable sources

Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: World War II Wiki talk:Reliable sources Sponge Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : 134.155.108.49:8890 associated with source dataset(s)

I really think that it would be a lot more beneficial if we kept web sources to a very minor role, with the exception of reliable print sources that are available online. It will make us a lot more reputable if we use print sources. I would recommend on only using print sources, although requiring it might be going to far. --Sascha 19:51, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Attributes	Values
rdfs:label	World War II Wiki talk:Reliable sources
rdfs:comment	I really think that it would be a lot more beneficial if we kept web sources to a very minor role, with the exception of reliable print sources that are available online. It will make us a lot more reputable if we use print sources. I would recommend on only using print sources, although requiring it might be going to far. --Sascha 19:51, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
dbkwik:world-war-2...iPageUsesTemplate	dbkwik:resource/9fWvYRal359Vxb77mvME_Q==
abstract	I really think that it would be a lot more beneficial if we kept web sources to a very minor role, with the exception of reliable print sources that are available online. It will make us a lot more reputable if we use print sources. I would recommend on only using print sources, although requiring it might be going to far. --Sascha 19:51, January 24, 2012 (UTC) Although print sources are reputable, it is going way to far to force editors to usually buy books for references. That is why we can't require book sources. I feel that websites should play an even role not minor as they are more available to all editors. This is just my opinion. Fargo84 Talk Contributions World War II 23:28, January 24, 2012 (UTC) I understand the reasoning behind that though, but users who are interested enough in WWII to contribute here will probably have their own books. They'd be able to cite from what ever they have. I'm willing to surrender on this, but I think my suggestion would be a lot better for the following reasons. People would still be able to use web sources, but only for support of other sources. Also, if we want to become a resource for historians, we're going to have a huge uphill battle; all academics write off nearly all wikis as being unreliable because of their wildly accessible nature. I won't change the policy unless you want me too, or we could change it eventually. --Sascha 00:25, January 25, 2012 (UTC) Although, editors may not have books about everything I doubt it will be healthy for the wiki's growth if we need to restrict editors to mainly books. I still believe books and websites should be even on terms of reliability, but books will be reccomended. That way, they are even in terms that they both qualify as good sources yet books are the preferred choice. I don't want to keep fighting but I will stick to my belief. Maybe we should take this to council so we can finally make a decision. Fargo84 Talk Contributions World War II 01:32,3/28/2012 01:32, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3217, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Standard Edition
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2012 OpenLink Software