User talk:Vassyana/fiction

Mathematics articles are generally worse in my experience. Fiction doesn't need much in the way of verification because of its nature. Mathematics on the other hand tends to be quite opaque while the assertions made may be of some importance. And yet inline citations are very much the exception.

On the other hand, when you look at the articles which are groaning under the weight of citations, this often because they are battlegrounds and this tends to make them poor articles too. What is one to do ...

Colonel Warden (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For articles that are under heavy dispute, I tend to think the clear "back and forth" and editorial voices apparent in the text have more to do with the poor quality than the overabundance of sources. While it's easier said than done, the solution is to dispassionately report what the available sources state while sticking to approximately the same balance as the total body of sources. For mathematics, philosophy, religious studies and other subjects that tend to have poor sourcing, more often than not it will not be terribly difficult to get good changes to stick. This can become this, for example. Vassyana (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat ironically, I tend to think sentence by sentence citation has a greater potential for OR and synthesis than the whole paragraph or split paragraph (first half one ref, second half another ref) approach. Certainly, the sentence by sentence approach often works for summary sections with a seealso or main link fairly well because fairly broad statements are being sourced. In an article devoting more attention to a matter, I find it hard to see individual statements each individually sourced without immediately being concerned about synthesis and being equally concerned about what context is being lost by cherrypicking things in such a piecemeal manner.
 * The referencing style you use in Sun Tzu is not often seen in articles here in my experience. It would not survive in the battleground articles because it is quite indirect and lacks online links which would lead to accusations of OR and synthesis.  I must try to spend more time in such uncontroversial articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I must confess, that I have little but a cynical view of demands for online sources. To me, it is generally an appeal to laziness. Some claim it is for the sake of convenience and/or verifiability, but I don't buy it. The word of the day on my talk page expresses the snark I feel about the topic in a cheeky and good-natured way. I usually rely on university and academic press books as much as possible, only using online sources when they are from noteworthy authorities and generally in agreement with at least a significant portion of the relevant field. I also have a preference for citing websites to cite essays, informational pages and so forth hosted as part of a university department website.

If you're serious about spending some time around less controversial articles, there's a whole swath on core/main topics needing some love and attention across most subject areas. Even some of the higher traffic ones can be fixed up without encountering much of a problem. I personally find it very relaxing to occasionally find one of those articles and fix it up. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, this editor seems to be among the minority of editors who grasp proper use of citation templates. For that, I applaud you. Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)