It might be worth separating out citations which demonstrate the validity of a claim from references (which provide more info and in depth explanations, but may not carry weight as a reliable source).
In general wikipedia (for example) should never be sited as proof for the validity of a claim. If you do this a large number of people will doubt your credibility. Wikipedia is great for providing a more detailed explanation however.
My use of citation and reference here are probably not precise in their terminology (anyone no better terms to distinguish these).
Good sources for citation would be: * Scientific Journals * Newspapers (for information on what events happened, who said what etc, not for scientific data generally though) * Popular science publications (not as good as journals, but usually ok) * Government bodies that measure data (for the data they measure)
Sources to be very careful of: * Wikipedia and any other open forums * Politically biased organizations (unless citing what their views are in which case they are a very good source) * UN (some of their data is good, some of it is complete political hogwash, the key is being able to spot the difference) * Oversimplified examples (about.com, really anything that makes broad statements with authority, but no evidence)
I think we may be ok with citations as-is for this, as long as we're careful with how they're used. Text about hard numbers should be linked to actual sources. Text like "there are many types of wind turbines available" could go to something like wikipedia.
The main reason why I bring the up is the page http://alpha.sixlinks.org/Citations/ . If I see a page like this on a site and scan through it, my assumption would be that it is not well researched (whether true or not).
Especially with the statement below. This would indicate to me that the sources listed below fit the criteria of places that research may be checked. "It's important to know where information comes from, and to not simply take our word for it. The citations, in pages, and in this list allow you to check up on our research, and make it better." Reply to comment
The citations list page is still pretty rough, and I don't think we've fully conceptualized what that page is really for, who uses it, or what they're trying to accomplish. It seems useful to have a listing of all the citations, but as-is, they're not tremendously useful. (Though, they are useful for search engines)
I would probably be inclined to ditch the page (since it in my opinion creates a negative impression).
What does it do for search engines? I don't see it being a page that will get search engine attention (or that you would want people coming in from a search engine to). And I don't think it would help other sites ratings in the engines since the links aren't actually on that page. Reply to comment
Yeah, we'll be looking at this going forward, to see if there's a good use for it (other than folks on the content wiki needing a citation).
It's useful on search engines in that it uses consistent verbiage to link particular ideas (all of them related to SixLinks), then repeats that phrasing on the linked page, with links to pages they already index.
It would probably pull a small number of visits to the actual citation pages. Reply to comment
If you don't have an account, you'll need one. We recognize that this is a pain, but we do it to keep spambots from flooding the site. If this really bothers, you, please let us know. We're listening!
Get the Facts
Do Your Part
Me
My Part
Following
Community
Talk
Even More
Login or Get an Account!
Support SixLinks
In general wikipedia (for example) should never be sited as proof for the validity of a claim. If you do this a large number of people will doubt your credibility. Wikipedia is great for providing a more detailed explanation however.
My use of citation and reference here are probably not precise in their terminology (anyone no better terms to distinguish these).
Good sources for citation would be:
* Scientific Journals
* Newspapers (for information on what events happened, who said what etc, not for scientific data generally though)
* Popular science publications (not as good as journals, but usually ok)
* Government bodies that measure data (for the data they measure)
Sources to be very careful of:
* Wikipedia and any other open forums
* Politically biased organizations (unless citing what their views are in which case they are a very good source)
* UN (some of their data is good, some of it is complete political hogwash, the key is being able to spot the difference)
* Oversimplified examples (about.com, really anything that makes broad statements with authority, but no evidence)
Anyone else want to weigh in on this? Reply to comment
More thoughts from everyone? Reply to comment
Especially with the statement below. This would indicate to me that the sources listed below fit the criteria of places that research may be checked.
"It's important to know where information comes from, and to not simply take our word for it. The citations, in pages, and in this list allow you to check up on our research, and make it better." Reply to comment
Suggestions are welcome! Reply to comment
What does it do for search engines? I don't see it being a page that will get search engine attention (or that you would want people coming in from a search engine to). And I don't think it would help other sites ratings in the engines since the links aren't actually on that page. Reply to comment
It's useful on search engines in that it uses consistent verbiage to link particular ideas (all of them related to SixLinks), then repeats that phrasing on the linked page, with links to pages they already index.
It would probably pull a small number of visits to the actual citation pages. Reply to comment
If you don't have an account, you'll need one. We recognize that this is a pain, but we do it to keep spambots from flooding the site. If this really bothers, you, please let us know. We're listening!