I've noticed that the <ref> tag is very rarely used. In fact, the only time I've ever seen a source cited on this Wiki is when I'm doing the editing—and I haven't contributed that much content. Perhaps if we cited sources more often, such as the RuneScape knowledgebase, people would be more willing to accept our information as truth. Of course, there are always going to be wiki-haters who will never believe any of the facts here just because anybody can contribute.
I don't really see any cons to citing sources. It can only help, right? Even if players doubt the truthfulness in our articles (though they shouldn't), they will be able to click on a reference link and consult a source that they have more trust in. And, of course, it will make weeding out more subtle vandalism quite a bit easier.
I'm not proposing that we force contributors to cite sources, but I do think we should make an effort to cite as much as we possibly can. If a recent change isn't cited, perhaps another contributor could verify the information and add a source or two.
Of course, as RuneScape will always have its mysteries, not all information can be cited—especially if we're the first "fansite" (for lack of a better term) to release a new article after an update, which we often are. However, we might be able to come up with some method for referencing the game itself, since the <ref> tag isn't limited to URL's. For example, here's a reference that I made from a combination of APA's recommendation and MLA's recommendation: <ref>[http://www.jagex.com/ Jagex]. RuneScape 2, compressed Java applet. URI: [http://www.runescape.com/ http://www.runescape.com/]</ref> (Note: URI is not a typo; that's an I ["eye"], not an L ["ell"]). Perhaps we could stick that in a template that also adds a category, so we can reference knowledgebase articles at a later date?
What do you think: is it worth the little bit of extra effort? I'm not so much looking for a "support" or "oppose" as I am looking for comments and constructive feedback.
Just thought of something... has this issue already been brought up? I didn't notice any related discussion in recent Yew Grove history, but I could have missed something.22:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I should point out that at least some of the articles (hopefully a diminishing number of them) have been copied verbatim from some of the other fansites, such as tip.it, RuneHQ, and others. While the information can (usually) be independently verified simply by logging into the game and checking it out, I do think some of these other fan sites ought to be cited when information is gleaned from their pages. We are certainly not restricted to only citing information from Jagex websites.
On occasion Jagex has also been in the mainstream media or more often has appeared in more general news sites about games, where some interesting little tidbits of information have been discussed about Runescape as well. Some of this, including in particular controversial issues like the elimination of the wilderness (in terms of player vs. player combat there) and why Jagex needed to eliminate real-world trading, have been discussed extensively on non-Jagex websites. There certainly is some information that could be very useful to the wiki that can and should be cited properly.
All of this really is spit and polish in terms of making this a far better website. Any effort like this I certainly support. --Robert Horning 12:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - This already exists, and I've done a bit of work on it. Template:Fact 18:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - I support the citation, but it should not be limited to just articles. Although perhaps the citation is not a relevant term in this case, I feel we should also reference any images taken directly from the Jagex website (this would not apply to other fansites as acquiring an image from them is a violation of policy). Although I am familiar with MLA Citation, It has been a few years, perhaps a new policy for citation format is required...especially directly to website MLA, vs. E-mail, vs. Forums, etc.
14:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)