Ziko, you raise the subject of "illiterates"... I feel that it is blatant
discrimination to assert that the only way illiterates can create sources
worthy of citation on Wikipedia is either by becoming literate, or by being
interviewed by a literate person. This to me indicates a value judgement,
t
Recently on foundation-l, in the Oral Citations thread has been the
beginning of a conversation that is far too important to be relegated to a
few back-and-forth responses.
Manish and I have submitted for a community fellowship to formalise the
discussion around an expanded role of alternate cita
https://twitter.com/#!/tommorris/status/173557756882722816
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 26-02-2012 11:34, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
Dear Castelo,
We are in danger to repeat ourselves.
Right, friend, let's not say same things again. xD
I'll only add, and not repeat, because i agree with you in what you
pointed below. I just think your list require some adittional items (as
my list
Dear Castelo,
We are in danger to repeat ourselves. :-) Short and simply, my statement:
* WP is an encyclopedia, with all what that means;
* the difference between primary sources and secondary sources is of
vital importance (at least in the perspective of most historians).
Kind regards
Ziko
20
