Talk:The Making of a Moonie

message: Looking at the first three footnotes of this article, all pertain -- citing William Rusher, George Chryssides and Laurence Iannaccone -- and all are from online iterations of reputable publications. But as of today, the links back to their sources are no longer working.
Which if I might opine: This highlights a conundrum that Wikipedia and other online encyclopedia projects are faced with when it comes to online sources. One which should be a lesson on how digital documentation of historical import can be lost in the online shuffle. And one that, I believe, Wikipedians should take note of as the project moves forward.
Unlike traditional publications, such as those linked to ISBNs in current footnotes 4 and 5, online documentation -- even when it is important -- is not yet backed up by library science the way that traditional publications are. Instead, it is subject to the ongoing free-for-all that all online publications -- reputable and unreputable -- face as they attempt to find their footing during this Information Revolution.
I am not going to take on the responsibility of deleting these footnotes, although strictly speaking according to the project's guidelines they probably ought to be. In that, they may be the only documentation left of the historical facts that they reference.
Yet at the same, being in the process of writing an article for  my own online publication in which the subject of cults will come up -- and therefore on the lookout for sources -- I cannot use the quote by Iannaccone in footnote 3 because I can't trace it back to the original source.
It is ironic, for all the promise of the Information Age, that one of its unforeseen side effects may be the ease with which historical information is lost. At the same time, it is no surprise that the problem is being highlighted in the course of the unfolding of the Wikipedia project. Hopefully enough Wikipedians will recognize the problem, so that the project becomes a part of its solution. --ô¿ô 20:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Conundrum of Online Sources 

message: The criticism have hardly anything to do with the book. This page is not about Barker as a person or her other writings, but only about her book Making of a Moonie. Sourced reviews of the book from reputable sources are welcome of course. I will remove the criticism section. Andries 16:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28books%29#Note_on_notability_criteria, we need a few reliable sources that cite this book. I think Zablocki, JT Richardson, Thomas Robbins and others have cited the book. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 03:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary section header 

message: The "Critiques" section sounds like promotional material.  Were there any critical reviews?  Anything that addressed the substance of the book? -- Beland 00:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: *If someone could find a more critical review from a reputable source and add a quote from it to this article, that would be appreciated.  Yours, Smeelgova 08:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical review

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Making of a Moonie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/diskus/chryssides.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nkN0WHJc?url=http://www.sssrweb.org/PastWinners.cfm to http://www.sssrweb.org/PastWinners.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified