You can still describe [your] point of conversation without quoting
them, while leaving the conversation inside of the extended materials
of your work, available on demand. If it matters, of course.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 16:33, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I may not have make clear what I mean. In the humanities, you often
have to quote conversations. But when I do, I reveal automatically
reveal who said what, even if it is not important for me what was said
exactly by whom. Wikipedians tend to dislike these quote, because they
can be used to name and shame, and bringing up old disputes, and maybe
reveal the real identity when done at a large scale.
For example, I copied a piece of conversation here, and replaced the
user names. Still, it is easy to retrieve the original conversation
with the Search.
Kind regards
Ziko
Surely this is just self promotion? I have seen othger articles about
websites be delted as they are regarded as self-promotion. —UserA
The article tries to be balanced and neutral, and provide facts
about the project and a summary of criticism directed at it without
prejudice. How well it achieves this is of course open to
interpretation – UserB
I'm very surprised that anyone would think Wikipedia should
not have an article on itself. Imagine that someone wants to read a
summary of this project. How would they do it? They would have to go
through thousands of help pages, which is impossible. So they can come
to this article and have the project explained in one place. The
article has to be unbiassed of course and point out the flaws of the
project as well as the strengths. As someone said elsewhere, you would
surely expect to find the word "dictionary" in a dictionary so I would
expect to find Wikipedia in Wikipedia! -UserC
2010/10/25 Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 21:30, Ziko van Dijk
<zvandijk(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
There is one problem that I met several times
with relation to Wiki
research. On the one hand, it is importand to reference to one's
"primary sources", e.g. link to a sentence in a WP discussion we are
talking about. On the other hand, we want to preserve the privacy of
our users.
For example, in Leipzig a lecturer talked about a certain discussion,
and he tried to keep it anonimously because it was about the
discussion itself, not to embarass the persons. But, the anonimity was
soon destroyed by curious listeners, anyway.
Did you already encounter that problem yourself?
The best way for keeping anonymity is to present derivative work, not
source itself. It is regular part of scientific work in social
sciences. And you guarantee for the validity by your scientific
integrity, as well as by sources which you are keeping for yourself
for possible check by other scientist who would keep the sources
confidential, too.
For example, I remember one sociolinguistic research, where scientists
taped speech of one Irish community. They gathered all private data
and connected them with records. Then, they renamed subjects with
letters: A, B, etc. At the end, they made a digest record which they
are willing to show to other interested scientists just on demand, as
well if I remember well, with a kind of confidentiality agreement with
them. I think that the research is from 1970s.
So, you should combine all of the tools which you can have: derivative
works, digesting, stating that the sources are confidential, finding
other [trusting] scientist who would check your sources and guarantee
for them, too.
And, yes, sources should be handled carefully. There are just a couple
of thousands core Wikimedians and it is relatively easy to understand
who is the person from the source.
_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
--
Ziko van Dijk
Niederlande
_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l