14 ms·

And citing out of print inaccessible paper journals is not regarded as evidence. (Apparently) Again I provided diagrams explaining how a piece of scientific eq

by rob_c 5y ago

And citing out of print inaccessible paper journals is not regarded as evidence. (Apparently) Again I provided diagrams explaining how a piece of scientific equipment work in detail and this was disregarded because I didn't attach a link from some news outlet. This is just brain damagingly stupid.

jhgb 5y ago
> And citing out of print inaccessible paper journals is not regarded as evidence. [citation needed] I've seen plenty of references to "out of print inaccessible paper journals" in Wikipedia articles. They haven't been deleted.
- rob_c 5y ago
  Yes they're up there. But having it held as a reason to have a page of scientific descriptions and drawings deleted is just madness.
vidarh 5y ago
What you need to realise with respect to this is that it is not a judgement about whether or not the information is important or valid, but about whether or not it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. One can disagree with their goal, but their goal is not to be a repository for all the worlds knowledge, but to be a summary of attributable, notable knowledge. The problem is not citing out of print inaccessible paper journals, but about only citing that, and not citing secondary sources that helps establish notability. If nobody has talked about the primary source elsewhere, that means it likely does not belong in Wikipedia. Your out-of-print paper journal cite is useful to allow people to (with some effort, to be sure) verify the facts of the article, though. One of the downsides, I feel, about the prominence of Wikipedia is indeed that people fight over inclusion in Wikipedia rather than accept that many things belong in other datasets instead. E.g. descriptions of possibly important overlooked research would be valuable. I have my own little collection of papers that have had little direct impact that I personally believe should have, for example, and I wish I had time to write about them.

by rob_c 5y ago

jhgb 5y ago

> And citing out of print inaccessible paper journals is not regarded as evidence. [citation needed] I've seen plenty of references to "out of print inaccessible paper journals" in Wikipedia articles. They haven't been deleted.

rob_c 5y ago
Yes they're up there. But having it held as a reason to have a page of scientific descriptions and drawings deleted is just madness.

vidarh 5y ago

What you need to realise with respect to this is that it is not a judgement about whether or not the information is important or valid, but about whether or not it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. One can disagree with their goal, but their goal is not to be a repository for all the worlds knowledge, but to be a summary of attributable, notable knowledge. The problem is not citing out of print inaccessible paper journals, but about only citing that, and not citing secondary sources that helps establish notability. If nobody has talked about the primary source elsewhere, that means it likely does not belong in Wikipedia. Your out-of-print paper journal cite is useful to allow people to (with some effort, to be sure) verify the facts of the article, though. One of the downsides, I feel, about the prominence of Wikipedia is indeed that people fight over inclusion in Wikipedia rather than accept that many things belong in other datasets instead. E.g. descriptions of possibly important overlooked research would be valuable. I have my own little collection of papers that have had little direct impact that I personally believe should have, for example, and I wish I had time to write about them.