User talk:Biogeographist
Allen, Barry (January 2017). "Review of Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia by Dariusz Jemielniak". Common Knowledge. 23 (1): 104. doi:10.1215/0961754X-3692492.
Vandendorpe, Christian (October 2015). "Wikipedia and the ecosystem of knowledge". Scholarly and Research Communication. 6 (3): 1–10. doi:10.22230/src.2015v6n3a201. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Enlightenment[edit]
Hello. Your edit over at the What Is Enlightenment? is justified and understandable [1]. So, I replaced that source, with the same source but this goes to a Google Books page where this Chapter four essay can be read by anyone who clicks on it. As I said in my edit summary [2]: "Move from 'Further reading' to be used as a reference...This (source) is speaking to Kant's question as posed in the intro. This is better than the removed source because this is available to anybody.
"
So, in other words, the problem of verification seems to be solved. Please take a look. If there is a problem with this let me know. I just want to post here to let you know what is going on - to provide some clarity. I appreciate that you removed that source because it was unclear which claim it was supposed to verify.
And, now that we are this point, I might as well say that I removed all the the original research and left only the intro. I affixed those sources to the intro. So, I am not sure how accurate the intro is. As editors we have only so much time to work with this stuff, Hopefully, I can get back to this article at some point. In any case, it is now possible to build an arricle that complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Apologies for such a long post. I did not intend to post this much. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Steve Quinn: Thanks for the note and for your attention to this article. I find it more helpful to put a reference as close to the claim it verifies as possible, instead of placing a bunch of references together at the end of a long paragraph. I still don't know which reference verifies which claim in that paragraph. Your edit summary, when you put back Schmidt 2017 in the lead section, said: "This is speaking to Kant's question as posed in the intro." But the whole article is about Kant's question! If there's not a specific claim that Schmidt 2017 verifies, then it should go in "Further reading", in my opinion. In fact, I am the one who first added Schmidt 2017, in this edit in January 2023, after the lead paragraph had been written by somebody else, so I know that it is probably not a reference that was used to write the lead paragraph. So I still don't see a reason for it to be in a ref tag at the end of the lead paragraph. Perhaps I could assent to your move of the reference if you could give me a better reason. Biogeographist (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for the feedback. I have no problem with putting Schmidt 2017 back into the "Further reading" section. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)