Talk:BOINC Credit System
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
rv part of ceea edits
editWhat is little mentioned in discussions of BOINC by its proponents is that the competitive aspects of what could well be called the "BOINC-Credits Game" tends to overshadow its use as a scientific tool.
- Weasel word
The very same people who hope to gain online social status by showing high point scores are also those who need the most policing to avoid cheating and spoofing.
- Factually incorrect
The investigating scientists using this means of number crunching need no more statistics than they can pull from their own server. They can see how much of the body of data has been processed and how long it took. The game-style scorekeeping serves no purpose for most researchers.
- Wesel word,pov
using their own machines and those upon which they can surreptitiously install the software while avoiding detection.
Citing and referencing sources
editThe article is flagged as missing citation or sources; however the reference to the main BOINC project website contains all the information I just randomly looked up. As such, the article does appear to have a valid source - though specific phrases are not "citet" directly; just the overall source. Is this not sufficient to remove the flag? SplatMan DK (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- This article does not contain any references. It it did, they would appear in the References section. The link of which you speak is an external link—not a reference. Ideally, citations are made inline with the facts of the article, and appear as a superscript. This helps readers and other editors trace the source of each fact (down to the paragraph level, at least). Also, the main BOINC website would be a primary source. Primary sources are generally not preferred because they are often the result of original research. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 04:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)