Proposal:Distinguish Between "Articles to be Treated as Sources" and "Articles to be Treated as References"
A proposal to implement a system to categorize wiki-submissions as either "Potential Sources" or "Reference Summaries."
I Propose that submissions be divided into two categories, which I will call "Potential Sources" and "Reference Summaries." The former would consist of all articles both 'suitable to be cited as sources for college or professional papers' and 'approximately equal in say (authority) to the most authoritative commonly available source on the subject (which may be the article itself).' The latter would consist of all articles either 'meant to serves as guidelines rather than sources' or 'not having final say (authority) on the subject.) Submissions that fall under the second category because of lack of say should, if possible, link to or provide means of reaching the most authoritative source on the subject.
If such a system was implemented into Wikimedia, the overall credibility and usability of its projects would be greatly enhanced. I also believe it is important to distinguish between, for example, an article about a simple mathematical formula which is more or less universally accepted and an article describing a self-defined institution; the former would fall under the category of 'Potential Source,' providing that it could be potentially referenced in a college or professional level paper, while the latter would fall under the category of 'Reference Summaries,' because the institution described would be the final authority on itself.
Should subjective material be allowed in wikimedia? In my opinion, yes, as long as it is clearly labeled as such.
Additional time and virtual space requirements.
Do you have a thought about this proposal? A suggestion? Discuss this proposal by going to Proposal talk:Distinguish Between "Articles to be Treated as Sources" and "Articles to be Treated as References".
Want to work on this proposal?
- .. Sign your name here!