Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check/Example 2/
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is interesting to look at this short example article to see what should be checked. One can even to look at what appears to be checked, but which peculialy ends up with a "fact" different from what the source really says. Thus a few observations about what could arise in an article.
- What facts are so obvious from empirical evidence that anybody can see it. Is it not obious that a spider has eight legs and no wings? Since having wings is the exception in the animal kingdom; does it even need to be mentioned?
- The article says that spiders produce "silk", but the reference says that they produce "silken threads". That's not the same thing. True silk comes from silkworms. "Silken" suggests tha the substance is like silk.
- The fact that I would be most likely to question is that spider silk is made of protein, but there is no reference for that one at all.
- Can general sources of basic facts about the item be cited once on a global basis? That would leave specific notes more applicable for less well known facts.
- This is an example so repeatedly using Encarta as a source is just a matter of quick convenience. There is no copyright problem with doing this. Repeatedly mentining Encarta in the references for a single atticle would have the effect of advertising for the competition. :-)
Eclecticology 18:06, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
Using another encyclopedia is a bad idea. You could prove all sorts of nonsense by using a certain encyclopedia once sold in supermarkets. P0M 19:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] rapidly changing articles and getting out of sync
I like this approach for specific sections which are controversial and are under continual discussion, but it seems to me far too much work to take more than a few articles and break them down like this. Mozzerati 14:51, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
