Why would it be inappropriate to cite primary sources, like travel logs or
property deeds? I do that all the time in Wikipedia. Not only are they good
sources, but they generally are much more trustable than the secondary
sources which just parrot them (often with typos and misquotes).
I fully agree with Kathleen and Merrillee that Wikipedia is perfectly
citable, if done properly (like using diffs for properly revised editions,
and not a link to the article).
The Wikipedia policy that has been mentioned here is about circular
citations. It is correct, but is totally unrelated to this case. Wikipedia
is not supposed to produce new knowledge, so it shouldn't be cited
internally in any circumstance (at least that I can think of). OTOH,
there's nothing against using proper Wikipedia citations outside Wikipedia.
Even if there still is a lot of preconception about it, not only I believe
it is doable, but that it should be an objective for us in the projects to
provide some way to properly validate Wikipedia content for use in external
sources.
Best,
Paulo
Paul S. Wilson <paulscrawl(a)gmail.com> escreveu no dia quinta, 26/09/2019
à(s) 19:25:
Merillee,
The originally cited context not "ANYTHING", but specifically, "an
academic paper":
Yes, it may be appropriate on Twitter (though I
still wouldn't because
citing Wikipedia does not tell you where the info
originally comes from
because Wikipedia is simply a summary of secondary sources), but it's not
appropriate in an academic paper.
https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1177215917534711808
I agree. Citing tertiary sources is not academic.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 1:12 PM Merrilee Proffitt <mproffitt(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
The policy referred to is Wikipedia policy -- do not use Wikipedia as a
source for
new or existing Wikipedia articles. Not do not use Wikipedia
articles as a source for ANYTHING.
Top level guidelines are also to exercise common sense....
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:02 AM Paul S. Wilson <paulscrawl(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> You're welcome, Kathleen,
>
> It is frustrating, but but WP is not yet EB.
>
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:59 PM Paul S. Wilson <paulscrawl(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Wikipedia POLICY
> >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:54 PM Paul S. Wilson <paulscrawl(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Not "individual practices"; this is an English Wikipedia Policy:
> > >
> > > >Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia
or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources. Also, do not use websites
that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from
Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered
reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that
these sources support the content, then use them directly.[11] (There is
also a risk of circular reference/circular reporting when using a Wikipedia
article or derivative work as a source.)
> > >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources…
> > >
>> > > On Thu,
Sep 26, 2019 at 12:24 PM Kathleen DeLaurenti
>> > > <kathleendelaurenti(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi all -
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks for the responses. Regardless of our individual
practices,
I don't see any good coming from Wikipedia positively asserting that it
should "never be cited," and that's the crux of my concern here.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Kathleen
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 1:17 PM Paul S. Wilson <
paulscrawl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I have never considered user-generated content on Wikipedia to
be more than what librarians call a "discovery service".
> > > >>
> > > >> Briefly skimming an article on a subject l may know little
about, I invariably evaluate the sources rather than the text and hit the
cited references. In my 15-year experience, even the weakest and most
apparently biased articles have at least a few refs that lead to citable
sources and larger literature.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 11:54 AM Merrilee Proffitt <
mproffitt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I completely agree with Kathleen. I would assert that it is a
lack of nuance around the nature of information sources and the research
task at hand that has lead educators and others to wholesale "ban" the use
of Wikipedia.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Whether or not a source can be utilized in a research context
depends on the researcher, and what information they are supporting with
the citation. For my middle school daughter doing some investigation on an
element in the periodic table (as she has been doing this week), the
Wikipedia English article (or any encyclopedia article) is appropriate for
her. For a graduate student in chemistry this would not be appropriate, but
the grad student might (appropriately) cite Wikipedia for some basic
definitional stuff, just as they might cite a dictionary or something
similar. You see Wikipedia utilized appropriately in citations all the time
-- why would we discourage this?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Having conversations about the veracity of online information
is tough. Wikipedia can be challenging because articles are at various
levels of development. To my mind, this makes it something that those of us
engaged in conversations around information literacy should steer towards,
rather than away from, because a) Wikipedia is widely utilized in a variety
of contexts and b) it is a great teaching tool for talking about when you
can trust information online and when you should steer clear. But saying
"no" to any information source without having a discussion about it seems
lazy. It definitely does not reflect the type of discourse we should be
having, especially now.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I look forward to more discussion on this topic.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Merrilee
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:02 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) <
nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Twitter doesn't facilitate reasoned arguments. I
suppose as
usual the
> > > >>>> goal was to
encourage greater use of the references and other
> > > >>>> meta-content of Wikipedia articles, which are excellent
tools
for
> > > >>>> critical
thinking.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Federico
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Kathleen DeLaurenti, 26/09/19 17:55:
> > > >>>> > Hi all -
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > As a librarian who uses and supports Wikipedia, I
wanted to
bring up
> > > >>>> > some issues
around the BuzzFeed article posted today about
M-Journal
> > > >>>> > that has led
to some messaging from the WikipediaUK twitter
account that
> > > >>>> > I find
concerning. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate
place to
> > > >>>> > bring this
up, but I wasn't sure where else to reach out.
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > For those who missed, a citation cite is not
manufacturing
journal
> > > >>>> > articles if a
student submits a Wiki article so that it
looks like an
> > > >>>> >
"official" citation in their school research papers.
> > > >>>> >
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/wikipedia-fake-academic-…
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > Clearly there are some nefarious potential uses here,
but
what's more
> > > >>>> > concerning is
that the WikiUK twitter account has come
forward
> > > >>>> > forcefully
saying that Wikipedia shouldn't be cited in the
literature.
> > > >>>> > Period.
> > > >>>> >
https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1177215917534711808
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > I work very hard to improve the cite through my
courses and
academic
> > > >>>> > advocacy as
do many librarians. It's concern to me to see
Wikipedia
> > > >>>> > undermining
its own authority in such a public way in what
appears to be
> > > >>>> > a misguided
attempt to deflect association with the MJournal
site.
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > Would welcome any insight or ideas on how to navigate
this
discussion.
> > > >>>> > The entire
M-Journal use case exists, imho, because we are
still
> > > >>>> > battling for
a critical (not blanket acceptance) view of
Wiki as a
> > > >>>> > resources,
and I find this kind of public statement to be
very damaging
> > > >>>> > to the hard
work so many are doing to create a quality
information resource.
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Libraries mailing list
> >>>> Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Libraries mailing list
> >>> Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Libraries mailing list
> >> Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Libraries mailing list
> > Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries