| Revision as of 22:46, 3 March 2013 editJohn Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits →One way to perhaps not waste time here: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:24, 4 March 2013 edit undoJohn Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits follow-up to own last comment hereNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| I have been involved in the creation of an ungodly mess of WikiProjects over the years, and the one thing which has recently occurred to me, which I have been acting on, is that one of the most productive and useful things we might be able to do to help develop content and decide arguments is to find what the better recent, highly regarded, reference books which deal with the subject say, and more or less follow their communal lead, "averaging out" points of disagreement and contention. Certainly, if you wanted to, creating a few pages indicating what such sources cover, like the one at ], might help resolve at least a few of these discussions. I am still creating pages of that type for a lot of religion-based projects, and kind of intend to get on to at least a few others when I finish that, but God knows how long it will take before I get to that point, and I certainly think if others wanted to do the same sort of thing it wouldn't be likely to be too much of a waste of their time. ] (]) 22:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC) | I have been involved in the creation of an ungodly mess of WikiProjects over the years, and the one thing which has recently occurred to me, which I have been acting on, is that one of the most productive and useful things we might be able to do to help develop content and decide arguments is to find what the better recent, highly regarded, reference books which deal with the subject say, and more or less follow their communal lead, "averaging out" points of disagreement and contention. Certainly, if you wanted to, creating a few pages indicating what such sources cover, like the one at ], might help resolve at least a few of these discussions. I am still creating pages of that type for a lot of religion-based projects, and kind of intend to get on to at least a few others when I finish that, but God knows how long it will take before I get to that point, and I certainly think if others wanted to do the same sort of thing it wouldn't be likely to be too much of a waste of their time. ] (]) 22:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Actually, I wasn't thinking that you would necessarily be interested in religion. I'm just starting with the religion related lists because so much of that content is subject to serious POV pushing and use of primary sources and the like. I also had a hand in the creation of a lot of the national WikiProjects, but they don't seem, in general, to get quite as much problems oversall. But, if nothing else, if once in a while you wanted to maybe get together material for an article on a major reference book, indicating its strengths and weakness based on reviews and the like, I think everybody would be very grateful for that, particularly when it comes to trying to figure out which such reference sources are more reliable for reflecting the existing overall academic opinion and which might be more POV pushing. And best of luck with the real life job, by the way. I don't like losing editors, but if those editors are also academics who can produce some of the sources we use, and if not editing here gives them more of a chance to create source material, I can and do think that is a loss we can live with. ] (]) 03:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:24, 4 March 2013
Redirect to:
Disambiguation link notification for March 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lada Negrul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Galich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
One way to perhaps not waste time here
Yes, I know your user talk page is a redirect right now, but I saw your recent activity and your user page and something occurred to me which might be useful for you, and possibly for anyone who reads your user page.
I have been involved in the creation of an ungodly mess of WikiProjects over the years, and the one thing which has recently occurred to me, which I have been acting on, is that one of the most productive and useful things we might be able to do to help develop content and decide arguments is to find what the better recent, highly regarded, reference books which deal with the subject say, and more or less follow their communal lead, "averaging out" points of disagreement and contention. Certainly, if you wanted to, creating a few pages indicating what such sources cover, like the one at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Judaism/Encyclopedic articles, might help resolve at least a few of these discussions. I am still creating pages of that type for a lot of religion-based projects, and kind of intend to get on to at least a few others when I finish that, but God knows how long it will take before I get to that point, and I certainly think if others wanted to do the same sort of thing it wouldn't be likely to be too much of a waste of their time. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I wasn't thinking that you would necessarily be interested in religion. I'm just starting with the religion related lists because so much of that content is subject to serious POV pushing and use of primary sources and the like. I also had a hand in the creation of a lot of the national WikiProjects, but they don't seem, in general, to get quite as much problems oversall. But, if nothing else, if once in a while you wanted to maybe get together material for an article on a major reference book, indicating its strengths and weakness based on reviews and the like, I think everybody would be very grateful for that, particularly when it comes to trying to figure out which such reference sources are more reliable for reflecting the existing overall academic opinion and which might be more POV pushing. And best of luck with the real life job, by the way. I don't like losing editors, but if those editors are also academics who can produce some of the sources we use, and if not editing here gives them more of a chance to create source material, I can and do think that is a loss we can live with. John Carter (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)