Jump to content

Help talk:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MusikAnimal (talk | contribs) at 17:40, 13 November 2015 (MusikAnimal moved page Help talk:Introduction to referencing (WM)/4 to Help talk:Introduction to referencing/4 over a redirect without leaving a redirect: too much cleanup of double-redirects, keep this name and once VE because the norm (hopefu...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconWikipedia Help NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp
NAThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

I would like to assert that the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources is not viable for certain types of content. One example of many is the field of open-source software.

In many cases, the source of authority for an open-source project will be the author/creator of the software. That author, and also avid supporters, will not have any published work that falls into the categories of " ...university textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers..." Many examples abound, one that just popped into my mind after I decided to post this, is the Classic Shell project. [[1]].

I just reviewed the Classic Shell Wikipedia page, and it has not a single reference to " ...university textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers..." Yet, it is a very accurate and complete Wikipedia page. Must we wait for some university-Prof to write a scholarly paper on Classic Shell (a paper that will be outdated the moment it is published) to satisfy Wikipedia?

Wikipedia needs to wake up and realize that as we move toward the middle of the 21st century, a 20th century definition of "Reliable Source" is not going to serve us well for all fields of study. $tephen T. Crye (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then what would you suggest? From my point of view, any definition will have flaws and areas where it doesn't work perfectly. Ironholds (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would stress that a reliable source does not have to be university texts, books from respected publishers, and so forth; those are merely examples of the types of sources that are usually the best. As long as you've got a source that fair, generally-educated readers would largely consider authoritative, you are usually okay. Scholarly essays, highly-established newspapers and such are again just examples of the sources that usually best fit these criteria. NTox · talk 18:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/4&oldid=690482950"