評論
打印
It is likely that our entry on “China” is shorter than our entry on “Harry Potter” too.
“中國” 條目的長度可能都超不過“哈利波特”
But that’s more because we have a short overview article on “China” and then break out specific topics into separate articles.
但這是因為“中國”條目只是一個概覽，更多的內容都在各個子條目中。
What happens normally is that when one entry gets too long, people will naturally want to break it up.
當一個條目太長，人們通常會很自然地想要將它分開。
When I was a student at Ohio State, I had Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger as a philosophy professor.
我在俄亥俄州上學的時候，哲學教授拉里桑格是維基百科的合伙創始人
Sanger had a policy that if you used Wikipedia as a source on a paper, you would receive an automatic five point deduction.
規定論文中不得引用維基百科的內容，違者一律扣除5分。
Do you think Wikipedia is reliable enough at this stage to pass as a source on an academic paper?
你是否同意，維基百科是否足夠可靠，可以在學術性文章中引用？
I would do the same thing if I were teaching a course at a university.
如果我是大學老師的話，我也會采取同樣的做法。
I would also deduct 5 points for citing Britannica.
我同樣也會對從大英百科全書中引用扣除5分。
This is simply not the proper role for an encyclopedia, no matter how good, in the research process.
在研究領域不管百科全書寫得多么好，它都不是用來引用的。
A high quality encyclopedia is a starting point, giving us broad background knowledge and helping us to firmly and correctly fill in gaps, not an original source.
一部高質量的百科全書只是一個起點，告訴你一些寬泛的背景知識，幫助你明確地、正確地填補問題，并不能取代原始材料。
The right thing to do is to quickly read the Wikipedia entry to get your bearings, and then go read the original sources.
正確的做法是，讀完百科全書中的介紹后確定方向，再去讀原始材料。
In 2007, Wikipedia decided to add no-follow tags to all of its external links.
2007年，維基百科決定為所有外部鏈接添加“不準跟蹤鏈接”屬性。
This drew the ire of some and sparked the creation of anti-Wikipedia wordpress plugins that automatically turn all the Wikipedia links on a person’s blog to no follow.
石激起千層浪，很多反維基百科者編寫了博客插件可以自動將個人博客里的維基百科鏈接更改為不準跟蹤鏈接。
Has the community’s decision to place no-follow tags around external links kept out spam, and do you think Wikipedia would ever decide to flip the switch back?
為外部鏈接添加不準跟蹤鏈接，這種做法對防止垃圾信息是否有效？你覺得未來會恢復回去嗎？
