Wikipedia talk:Improving referencing efforts/2007

message: *Very interesting and I generally concur. However, I would suggest this should be tagged . Addhoc 15:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate on why you think that. Essays are to share your views on Wikipedia, while this is a proposal that is trying change a process without altering policy. This change will only occur with large community input because I can't do it all myself. I have a lack of technical bot knowledge to start with. Mgm|(talk) 16:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, firstly, let me clarify that I'm only suggesting changing the tag. Basically you are saying "we should increase the efforts to provide references for all the material in Wikipedia and use technical tools to our advantage to reach this goal" and I'm not certain that constitutes a proposal for a guideline. Possibly a new wikiproject? Addhoc 17:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stupid me. I forgot to read the template in detail to see if it applied to the situation. I've "subst'd" it and altered the text. I do not want to create a new project. I want to improve the effectiveness of the existing one. - Mgm|(talk) 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I started up a discussion about verifying sources here and did not end with a "thumbs-up" to continue my goal of a sub-project on verifying and attributing articles. I wonder how the opinions in this discussion will affect this proposed WIkiProject. Sr13 (T|C) 02:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add this and this to the list. Sr13 (T|C) 02:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A very similar focus

message: User:RefBot has been blocked.  You'll get no help from that.  (SEWilco 03:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No RefBot for you 

message: It sometimes seems to me as if edits that include references are largely unappreciated. Would a tool that examined change histories finding edits that add <ref> tags or  templates and then listed editors with high-percentages be a way to start identifying editors who are making a positive difference in this regard? Sdsds 06:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but at present it's hard to access that information.  There is a data dump format which provides all edit history for an article but it is presently disabled for performance reasons.  There might be other ways, such as monitoring recent changes to spot editors making such changes, then examining the Contributions of such users.  (SEWilco 03:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved technology for recognizing editors who reference 

message: In y experience trying to find references to a particular article is a relatively inefficient way of sourcing. We use it because that's what we learned to do in school. it can be much more effective to take an issue of a reliable publication in a field of interest, or a comprehensive  interesting useful and reliable book, and see what articles the material there supports. This is already the method used for sourcing news items, and has been effectively used for groups of articles. Adding the appropriate references from an issue of say, the WSJ, can help many articles. (and also suggest new ones) DGG 00:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do that when I work through a book which has source material.  Sometimes it serves as an additional source, sometimes a whole article falls out.  (SEWilco 00:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Since this would mean the user spends less time searching for information and more time on editing, I think that is a good idea. - Mgm|(talk) 09:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It depends on what one is doing.  When writing for a particular article, effort goes to finding relevant source material.  When starting with a particular source, effort goes to finding articles which can use the material at hand.  Then complications ensue.  Such as when using one public domain history book, for one topic I found several Wikipedia articles had bits of relevant information but the topic was not woven together.  Rather than referencing the source, I ended up copying a section from it to create a new article on the topic, then absorbing misplaced pieces from several existing articles.  You pick up a book and you see what you've got.  Now I have a history book with a bunch of black and white maps, next is a tree reference book.  (SEWilco 03:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An alternative way of working