[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

[Ray Saintonge]

Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>3. Sarah points out the following text from WP:NOR :
>>      "anyone--without specialist knowledge--who reads the
>>      primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia
>>      passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation
>>      of primary source material requires a secondary source."
>>  That seems to be broken.  Examples of specialist knowledge
>>  which might be required are the ability to read a foreign
>>  language and the ability to understand mathematical notation.
>>
>>  Someone who can read music should be able to report from
>>  a musical score that it is in E-flat, even though that requires
>>  specialist knowledge.  What the policy *should* require
>>  (somehow) is that anyone who can read music will agree that
>>  the score is in E-flat.  The fundamental skills of the field
>>  should be assumed, and the policy should reflect that, imo.
>>    
>>
>I agree, that needs to be changed, but I'm not sure what to. We need
>to define what kind of specialist knowledge is ok, and what isn't. For
>example, is being able to speak Latin acceptable specialist knowledge
>to use, basically meaning Latin speakers can translate the primary
>source in the article? (It's definately preferable to cite a
>translation, but if there isn't one, it may or may not be ok for a
>Wikipedian to translate it, we need to decide.)
>
The development of translations is one of the aims of Wikisource.  If we 
do not allow foreign language references we are cutting off a 
significant body of information.  At one time Latin was the lingua 
franca of the educated, much as English has assumed that role in modern 
times.  In a broader sense if en:wp does not allow foreign language 
quotes so too would the other language projects be unable to quote 
English language sources.  The potential result of that boggles the 
mind.  Perhaps we are confusing special knowledge and specialist 
knowledge.  Knowing a foreign language does not imply any specialist 
knowledge except in matters about the language, not about specialist 
subjects in that language.  Indeed, ordinary speakers of the language 
may understand an article about physics or music in their own language 
no better than you understand an article about physics or music in English.

Citing the original is preferable to citing a translation, because the 
translation only adds a further level of uncertainty.  This doesn't help 
those who don't understand the source language.  Perhaps both need to be 
there so that the reader may compare if he is so willing and able.  The 
person who translated Sherlock Holmes' "last bow" into French as his 
"dernier coup d'archet" failed to distinguish between the use of a "bow" 
on stage and in archery.  The translation may very well be original.

Ec