koavf18 karma2009-10-01 04:44:35 UTC
View HistoryShare Link
koavf4 karma2017-06-01 21:34:41 UTC
It's best to have sources in the target language but sometimes that is simply impossible, so a back-up source in another language is a huge boon to smaller Wikipedias or Wikipedias which would reach huge communities of users (e.g. Bengali, which has 250 million speakers) but for complex historical reasons will not have the active user base as the English or German editions. So an article could be generated from or draw some statements from Wikidata and also provide a source which would be a big step toward a usable article on many topics in many languages. Complex value-judgement data about someone being corrupt is by definition a lot harder to quantify but something empirical like being convicted of a crime (in a certain jurisdiction on a certain date, etc.) would be easier to translate and insert into an article.
koavf3 karma2017-06-01 21:28:59 UTC
I'm not Aaron but you should not cite Wikipedia as a source. Everything in Wikipedia should itself be sourced--if it is, source that (and preferably actually read that source itself); if it's not, don't source it! Think of Wikipedia as the world's largest annotated bibliography when it comes to sourcing your own university papers.
koavf3 karma2017-12-30 19:55:02 UTC
My instinct is to starkly disagree with you here but I'd need to see more about your reasoning. Why is this the case according to you?
koavf3 karma2009-10-09 18:12:16 UTC
Do you think The Boston Globe will still be in print in a year or two?
Copyright © 2014 BestofAMA.com, All rights reserved.
reddit has not approved or endorsed BestofAMA, reddit design elements are trademarks of reddit inc.