I notice that the RFC Editor has a Citations Committee; should they be
responding to this issue?
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 05:24
* Marshall Eubanks:
The problem I have with this is not the content (presumably the
author of the I-D is vouching for any references they use), it's
that the content can change at any time.
I think that's why you're supposed to add a retrieved date to your
citation.
--
Florian Weimer
call and this is just my
opinion), I think that the IETF should require this usage in
anything published.
IMHO, whether to use temporal coordinates (where available) should be
left to authors' judgment. Some authors diligently monitor the
relevant Wikipedia pages.
For symmetric citations, I'd note
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 05:24:21PM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 15/Dec/10 03:02, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
IMHO, whether to use temporal coordinates (where available) should be
left to authors' judgment. Some authors diligently monitor the
relevant Wikipedia pages.
It makes
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
Sullivan [...@shinkuro.com]
I find it slightly astonishing that the RFC Editor's instuctions on
URLs don't require a visited-on parameter. Just about every academic
style guide
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:43:31AM -0500, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
Given that, I would expect that a URL that is demonstrably the most
stable reference available would suggest that the contents of the
URL at any date near the publication date of the RFC should yield
the same contents. If
a citation and then nobody can check whether
you understood (or even quoted) the material correctly.
Actually, as someone pointed out, in some sense dated URLs to Wikipedia pages
are in fact _superior_ to most other Web URL references, because in Wikipedia
you can go back into the history
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:03:57PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Actually, as someone pointed out, in some sense dated URLs to Wikipedia pages
are in fact _superior_ to most other Web URL references, because in Wikipedia
you can go back into the history and see just what the page looked like when
* web page, whether it's Wikipedia or
otherwise, is that the content can change at any time. So you not only
need spatial coordinates (the URL), but also the temporal coordinates
(date and time) for *when* the pertinent data was accessed and found to
be on that web page.
...
It depends
On 12/15/2010 12:08 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Yes, but you can only do that if (1) the author uses the
particular-version URL or (2) the author includes a visited-on note in
the citation. It's lovely, however, that in wiki-based systems you do
have this ablity, and I agree that it'd be nice to
monitor the
relevant Wikipedia pages.
Dear Andrew;
By some magic of cut and paste this was assigned to me, but it was apparently
written
by Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it.
I actually don't agree with that and think that temporal coordinates (such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:39:35PM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 05:24:21PM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 15/Dec/10 03:02, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
By some magic of cut and paste this was assigned to me, but it was apparently
written
by Alessandro Vesely
On 12/15/2010 9:24 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
This indicates to me that the one of the checks the RFC Editor and possibly
idnits should do is whether or not such citations have a date accessed
notation.
As already noted, there are two different semantics possible here:
1. Latest version of
SM sm at resistor dot net wrote:
Quoting Doug Ewell [1]:
I thought it would be good to let the list know that these
misconceptions exist and may be widespread, because of the wide
use of Wikipedia
I like Wikipedia and usually find its articles to be accurate. The
article on BCP
On Dec 14, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
SM sm at resistor dot net wrote:
Quoting Doug Ewell [1]:
I thought it would be good to let the list know that these
misconceptions exist and may be widespread, because of the wide
use of Wikipedia
I like Wikipedia and usually
On 12/14/2010 3:27 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
The problem I have with this is not the content (presumably the author of the
I-D is vouching for any references they use), it's
that the content can change at any time.
The problem with referencing *any* web page, whether it's Wikipedia
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
The problem I have with this is not the content (presumably the author
of the I-D is vouching for any references they use), it's that the
content can change at any time.
Hi Marshall. Mediawiki (the software behind Wikipedia and a lot of other
. Mediawiki (the software behind Wikipedia and a lot of other
sites) solved this problem years ago. It is possible to link to a specific
version of any article on a Mediawiki site. Just look for the 'Permanent
link' link on the page.
In my experience very few sites linking to Wikipedia use
18 matches
Mail list logo
