CZ Talk:Bibliography: Difference between revisions
imported>Richard Jensen (popular) |
imported>J. Noel Chiappa (→Further reading mandatory?: new section) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Secondly, it says "Outdated or discredited sources should be avoided". However, I think that we should explicitly allow historical sources. For instance, I think the bibliography for evolution should contain Darwin's ''The Origin of Species'', even though it is outdated (I haven't actually read the book, but I'm pretty sure it's outdated). -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 07:49, 2 September 2007 (CDT) | Secondly, it says "Outdated or discredited sources should be avoided". However, I think that we should explicitly allow historical sources. For instance, I think the bibliography for evolution should contain Darwin's ''The Origin of Species'', even though it is outdated (I haven't actually read the book, but I'm pretty sure it's outdated). -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 07:49, 2 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
:: I agree there is a value to popular sources in very technical subjects like physics. Darwin is a major primary source in the history of science but he would not be recommended for an article on (current) biology (only on the history of biology). Ditto Newton and Copernicus. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 12:54, 2 September 2007 (CDT) | :: I agree there is a value to popular sources in very technical subjects like physics. Darwin is a major primary source in the history of science but he would not be recommended for an article on (current) biology (only on the history of biology). Ditto Newton and Copernicus. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 12:54, 2 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
== Further reading mandatory? == | |||
I'd like to suggest that a 'Further Reading' section be ''mandatory'' in all articles (wherever possible) to guide readers who want more information than is in the article. | |||
Annotated lists are better than nothing, it's true, but at the same time, the person writing the article probably is familiar with the literature on the subject, and knows which works are i) most suitable for beginners, and ii) are highest in quality (readability, up-to-date, etc), and I think we'd be remiss in not passing along this knowledge to our readers. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 11:42, 25 February 2008 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 11:42, 25 February 2008
Hoping Richard Jensen might help us out here. --Larry Sanger 07:31, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
Why no popular and historical sources?
This page contains two recommendations that I have my doubts about. Firstly, it says "Popular sources are usually not included unless they are influential in their own right, or better sources are lacking." What's the reason behind this? It does seem to be in contradiction with "The bibliography is most useful […] for preparing a written report like a college term paper or report for a high school AP course" (by the way, I've no idea what AP means; an American term I guess). Non-popular sources on things like quantum mechanics will be hard to understand for high school or college students.
Secondly, it says "Outdated or discredited sources should be avoided". However, I think that we should explicitly allow historical sources. For instance, I think the bibliography for evolution should contain Darwin's The Origin of Species, even though it is outdated (I haven't actually read the book, but I'm pretty sure it's outdated). -- Jitse Niesen 07:49, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
- I agree there is a value to popular sources in very technical subjects like physics. Darwin is a major primary source in the history of science but he would not be recommended for an article on (current) biology (only on the history of biology). Ditto Newton and Copernicus. Richard Jensen 12:54, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
Further reading mandatory?
I'd like to suggest that a 'Further Reading' section be mandatory in all articles (wherever possible) to guide readers who want more information than is in the article.
Annotated lists are better than nothing, it's true, but at the same time, the person writing the article probably is familiar with the literature on the subject, and knows which works are i) most suitable for beginners, and ii) are highest in quality (readability, up-to-date, etc), and I think we'd be remiss in not passing along this knowledge to our readers. J. Noel Chiappa 11:42, 25 February 2008 (CST)