Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-12-07/News and notes

It is difficult for me to continue advocating and including Wikipedia citations in research publications when the content changes at the whim of a disgruntled editor. There is enough adversity to standing-up for including Wikipedia citations as it is without the "line melting away behind and underneath me". What is truth and what is consensus in contrast to what someone is willing to expend time resources protecting? Granite07 (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you *are* encouraging the use of Wikipedia citations, you're surely aware that the usual format for such citations includes a permanent link to a specific version of the page cited - meaning that the information *won't* "change at the whim of a disgruntled editor". 195.225.189.243 (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless I'd like to provide a citation at a later date, and in the meantime the page has changed. I do not think your are suggesting I save permanent links to my favorite version of each page. Granite07 (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * while this is the fundamental criticism of wikipedia that many people have, I don't see what it has to do with this Signpost story? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)