Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
I'd support a proposal like this, but is it technically possible? The current Wikipedia servers too often strain under the current load and I wonder if a system like this would push them to the breaking point? Still, if the technical issues can be resolved, I'd wholeheartedly support such a system. I especially like the possibility of having a standardized reference system with a central means of accessing the citations.-- Alabamaboy 03:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
While this is an interesting approach, I'd have concerns that once a reference is listed it would be taken as authorative across all articles. How would it be possible to distinguish where information from the source is valid and reliable and where other information has rendered obsolete. Gnan garra 03:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The current cite templates can barely handle many of the citations I use; it's unlikely that a centralized database would be able to, so I would continue to be forced to format references by hand. Here are some issues I have encountered, sorted by difficulty of using the cite templates:
I just don't have the energy to pursue getting the cite templates to handle all these; it took enough work to get a series field added to {{ cite book}}. In general, citation is more difficult at WP than in journals because in research papers one doesn't cite the old, foundational papers that have since been reprinted, and one doesn't include URLs. CMummert · talk 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
How is this different from m:Wikicat, m:Wikicite, and m:WikiTextrose? ( SEWilco 04:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC))
The article should have a more descriptive name than "improvement 1". ( SEWilco 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC))
It is a real hassle to copyedit (or structure) articles that have those huge blobs of referencing in them. Same thing really with infoboxes and some other types of templates. Maybe wikipedia needs 3 levels of viewing: reader view, text editing view, and then some sort of popups or expanded view, with all the guts of the refenreces and infoboxes and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.33.250 ( talk) 07:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
I'd support a proposal like this, but is it technically possible? The current Wikipedia servers too often strain under the current load and I wonder if a system like this would push them to the breaking point? Still, if the technical issues can be resolved, I'd wholeheartedly support such a system. I especially like the possibility of having a standardized reference system with a central means of accessing the citations.-- Alabamaboy 03:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
While this is an interesting approach, I'd have concerns that once a reference is listed it would be taken as authorative across all articles. How would it be possible to distinguish where information from the source is valid and reliable and where other information has rendered obsolete. Gnan garra 03:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The current cite templates can barely handle many of the citations I use; it's unlikely that a centralized database would be able to, so I would continue to be forced to format references by hand. Here are some issues I have encountered, sorted by difficulty of using the cite templates:
I just don't have the energy to pursue getting the cite templates to handle all these; it took enough work to get a series field added to {{ cite book}}. In general, citation is more difficult at WP than in journals because in research papers one doesn't cite the old, foundational papers that have since been reprinted, and one doesn't include URLs. CMummert · talk 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
How is this different from m:Wikicat, m:Wikicite, and m:WikiTextrose? ( SEWilco 04:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC))
The article should have a more descriptive name than "improvement 1". ( SEWilco 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC))
It is a real hassle to copyedit (or structure) articles that have those huge blobs of referencing in them. Same thing really with infoboxes and some other types of templates. Maybe wikipedia needs 3 levels of viewing: reader view, text editing view, and then some sort of popups or expanded view, with all the guts of the refenreces and infoboxes and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.33.250 ( talk) 07:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)