Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism/Referencing
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Open wikis
[edit]Non of them is currently online and alive. :/ Cinadon36 (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, this page needs a lot of love czar 03:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Cleanup
[edit]Is this page providing any added benefit atop the existing guidelines/MoS? If not, my recommendation would be to send editors to the canonical source, not this decade-old and out-of-date page. (Are we still grappling with editors using "anarchism" and "anarchist" inconsistent with reliable, secondary sources? Because it seems like that's under control. The advice on reliable archives is also incompatible with the policy... and those unauthorized repostings are also copyvio but that's another matter.) czar 17:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've reverted. Links to some of these resources has been invaluable, especially since some of their columns are from very early internet days. A good rationale is to plug the addresses for the sites into Google Scholar and note how many times they've been used as citations in scholarly works. -- Netoholic @ 01:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- These sites are not RS. We are pointing to some sites that have content that can not be used at WP. They are suitable for OR by researchers (that explains the few refs at scholar) but otherwise, they are self-published platforms. Why dont we point at respected secondary books or article journals instead? Cinadon36 (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- They are not self-published platforms - the authors of the articles submit them for publishing, and the owner/editor of each website decides what to publish. The equivalent would be more updated platforms like ThinkProgress, Quillette, or TechCrunch, and like those, while due care is needed, it is primarily the author's reputation that determines whether it is is a reliable source. What the guideline is saying is that these websites are collections of articles and that they are reliable for accurately presenting the article content and the identity of the authors. -- Netoholic @ 16:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Village Pump (Policy)
[edit]This page is being discussed here. Crossroads -talk- 17:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)