Wikiversity talk:Cite sources

Votes

 * Rayc 05:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- sebmol ? 12:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --Dario vet 12:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mirwin 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --HappyCamper 13:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- After some thought, this policy as it stands is more compatible with writing an encyclopedia than creating learning materials or conducting research. A help page (or even a guideline) about the who, what, when, where, why and how of citing sources would be a better alternative. --SB_Johnny | PA! 14:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * I'm thinking of the Bloom clock project. I first thought we were going to have people send in pictures of the flowers, but it appears that we are just going to have people note when they see flowers blooming.  Saying "I saw a sunflower blooming on thursday, XX/XX/20XX" is not citeable.  The policy as it stands treats both research and coursework as needing citations.  Suggest rewrite. (As it stands now, it says "To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia." I wonder where this policy came from? :) )  --Rayc 05:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this needs a "look over." I think we could make a 'cite' policy when OR is part of the project, by adding a "citation mechanims" or rule that references observations by members/participants of the project. "Non-citable" could then mean to not use data from an anon source. Just an idea... Awolf002 15:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We need to develop our content first, create our own precedents and derive best practices from that. This policy is highly premature. -- sebmol ? 12:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We need to use some common sense. There is probably no need to cite a source for Newton's Laws in every physics and engineering lesson.  Yet many will have links to more detailed presentations/explanations with citations. If someone is studying our material and challenges it, how are we too resolve the controversy in favor of more precision and correctness and understandibility if there is no requirement to cite a reputable source to backup initial claims of both parties for comparison?  We need to plan on documenting chains of reasoning and facts and provide further means of study for those inclined.  A cite provides both.  A paragraph or two could be added to introduce some gray wiggle room to help us get started and preserve potential for special projects.  Obviously no citation potential exists with original data.  Mirwin 13:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One cannot answer ALL questions BEFORE they are asked.Hillgentleman 08:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So this is policy now even though there are some concerns over the implementation?--Rayc 03:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think people are able to use common sense. When doubtful information is noticed on a page, people will ask for citations to sources. --JWSchmidt 16:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I support this policy as encouraging good practice - but I would not like, for example, to start mass-deletions of resources because they are not well-referenced, or adding "citation-needed" templates willy-nilly (not that I was suggesting this was what others suggested). The finding of citations for something submitted during an educational process can be encouraged through debate - it would not be productive to apply this policy miltantly, but within "common sense". Developing this "common sense" seems to be analogous to what Sebmol advises to "create our own precedents and derive best practices from that". Cormaggio talk 10:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think common sense is the path we should follow now. Cite sources when it's appropriate to do so, of course, but that's more appropriate for a help page, not an enforced policy. As was mentioned above, Wikiversity allows for OR, and depending on the type of OR, it might not really be possible to cite a source (on the contrary, we might be creating a source). A certain kind of verifiability can be reached by repeatability, rather than relying only on what's been said before. --SB_Johnny | PA! 14:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to see some examples of learning resources with inline citations. Maybe create them on WV:Cite sources/Examples or link to real examples that people have already done. --Devourer09 18:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The page assumes "articles"
Wikiversity encompasses many types of materials, and articles are only one kind of writing. The proposed policy specifically is about "mainspace" pages, in part, and in part seems to refer to all pages. This was never thrashed out so that the application was clear, which is why this was not formally made policy. It's like a lot of Wikiversity "situations," the community never came together with a coherent expression, so various community members sailed long, each with their own ideas of what we are about. Leads to conflict, eh? We can be many things, we don't have to be just one, but if there is no commonly accepted unifying vision, we have a formula for endless dispute. --Abd 23:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have edited the Verifiability policy, on which this proposed guideline or policy is based. If that is shown to be stable, I would intend to edit this to show actual practice as well as normative guidelines for assuring verifiability and neutrality. The objections above about this policy being designed for encyclopedia articles are sound. Educational resources are very different from encyclopedia articles, and can even promote some particular point of view, as long as they are not deceptively presented.
 * The Wikipedia policies on neutrality and verifiability, if applied in an educational setting, can severely hamper education.
 * In brick-and-mortar schools, students are not only allowed but are encouraged to give their opinions and the results of their own investigations. Professors, as well, often state their opinions. If they are skillful, they will also note that their opinions are not widely accepted, if that is true. They do not always do so, and they are not fired as a result, normally. It is the overall school environment that is neutral. Other balancing opinions may also be presented.
 * As I often write, Wikiversity handles neutrality inclusively, not by exclusion, blanking and deletion. We do act here, to organize material, placing rigorously neutral material at the top level in mainspace, and setting up attributed sections, sometimes, or subpages with original research and opinion, perhaps briefly summarized at the top level. We handle conflicts of interest through disclosure, not through exclusion. The Wikipedia policies are largely appropriate for an encyclopedia, as a "sum" of knowledge, sum meaning summary of what is notable and verifiable, not full addition or inclusion (often misunderstood by naive users). --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)