The Community Tech team has made great enough progress on the first new reports planned for the Event Metrics tool that I’ve published a Help page, “Definition of metrics,” detailing all of the metrics these two reports will include [1].
As this page makes clear, the new reports provide many numbers that weren’t available in the predecessor to Event Metrics, Grant Metrics. In particular, so-called “impact" metrics—like “Views to pages created” or “Avg. daily views to files uploaded”—will now let event organizers and their partners gauge the size of the audiences their contributions garner.
The metrics definitions spell out how each metric is calculated and exactly what it does and doesn’t include. I know organizers will be interested in these specifics, so I hope you’ll take a few minutes to look these definitions over and offer your thoughts. What are you excited to see? What is unclear or doesn’t seem right? I’ve set up a section on the project talk page for your comments [2]. We’re listening!
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Event_Metrics/Definitions_of_metrics https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Event_Metrics/Definitions_of_metrics [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Tech/Event_Metrics#Comments_r... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Tech/Event_Metrics#Comments_re:_%E2%80%98Details_on_metrics_planned_for_two_new_reports_(Feb._12,_2019)%E2%80%99
Joe Matazzoni Product Manager, Community Tech Wikimedia Foundation, San Francisco
Dear Education listers,
As a historian of science in higher education, I have been developping a course focusing on Wikipedia in recent years, and some may have heard of the WikiMOOC I presented at Wikimania MOntreal (though I only played a modest role in the WikiMOOC saga)
My course is pedagocally relying on anecdotes that say much about Wikipedia principles, Wikipedia comunity and how Wikipedia is regarded.
I am today very happy that my first anecdote in English has been published. It's about OLivia Colman's birthdate and how the press likes to ridicule Wikipedia, yet fact checking is actually done by Wikipedians instead of journalists, so I can't resist to self promote it here:
https://theconversation.com/no-wikipedia-didnt-get-actress-olivia-colmans-bi...
Comments welcome
That's really great! Thanks for sharing and good luck with your course!
Shani.
----------------------------------------------- *Shani Evenstein Sigalov* EdTech Innovation Strategist, NY/American Medical Program, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University. PhD Candidate, School of Education, Tel Aviv University. Lecturer, Tel Aviv University. Chairperson, WikiProject Medicine Foundation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Project_Med. Chairperson, Wikipedia & Education User Group https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_%26_Education_User_Group. Chairperson, The Hebrew Literature Digitization Society http://www.israelgives.org/amuta/580428621. Chief Editor, Project Ben-Yehuda http://bybe.benyehuda.org. *+972-525640648*
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:08 PM Alexandre Hocquet < alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
Dear Education listers,
As a historian of science in higher education, I have been developping a course focusing on Wikipedia in recent years, and some may have heard of the WikiMOOC I presented at Wikimania MOntreal (though I only played a modest role in the WikiMOOC saga)
My course is pedagocally relying on anecdotes that say much about Wikipedia principles, Wikipedia comunity and how Wikipedia is regarded.
I am today very happy that my first anecdote in English has been published. It's about OLivia Colman's birthdate and how the press likes to ridicule Wikipedia, yet fact checking is actually done by Wikipedians instead of journalists, so I can't resist to self promote it here:
https://theconversation.com/no-wikipedia-didnt-get-actress-olivia-colmans-bi...
Comments welcome
Alexandre Hocquet
Université de Lorraine & Archives Henri Poincaré Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr http://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Hi Alexandre,
Thanks for sharing your op-ed and for requesting comments.
When I read your article I am concerned about this statement: "Some advice for Olivia Colman: rather than “sending an e-mail to Wikipedia”, she can edit Wikipedia herself, like everyone else". That comes across to me as encouraging violation of English Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guideline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. Can you explain why you encouraged directly editing Wikipedia instead of placing an edit request on the talk page or sending an email to OTRS?
Thanks,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:11 PM Shani Evenstein shani.even@gmail.com wrote:
That's really great! Thanks for sharing and good luck with your course!
Shani.
*Shani Evenstein Sigalov* EdTech Innovation Strategist, NY/American Medical Program, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University. PhD Candidate, School of Education, Tel Aviv University. Lecturer, Tel Aviv University. Chairperson, WikiProject Medicine Foundation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Project_Med. Chairperson, Wikipedia & Education User Group https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_%26_Education_User_Group. Chairperson, The Hebrew Literature Digitization Society http://www.israelgives.org/amuta/580428621. Chief Editor, Project Ben-Yehuda http://bybe.benyehuda.org. *+972-525640648*
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:08 PM Alexandre Hocquet < alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
Dear Education listers,
As a historian of science in higher education, I have been developping a course focusing on Wikipedia in recent years, and some may have heard of the WikiMOOC I presented at Wikimania MOntreal (though I only played a modest role in the WikiMOOC saga)
My course is pedagocally relying on anecdotes that say much about Wikipedia principles, Wikipedia comunity and how Wikipedia is regarded.
I am today very happy that my first anecdote in English has been published. It's about OLivia Colman's birthdate and how the press likes to ridicule Wikipedia, yet fact checking is actually done by Wikipedians instead of journalists, so I can't resist to self promote it here:
https://theconversation.com/no-wikipedia-didnt-get-actress-olivia-colmans-bi...
Comments welcome
Alexandre Hocquet
Université de Lorraine & Archives Henri Poincaré Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr http://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
On 15/02/2019 19:37, Pine W wrote:
When I read your article I am concerned about this statement: "Some advice for Olivia Colman: rather than “sending an e-mail to Wikipedia”, she can edit Wikipedia herself, like everyone else". That comes across to me as encouraging violation of English Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guideline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. Can you explain why you encouraged directly editing Wikipedia instead of placing an edit request on the talk page or sending an email to OTRS?
Hey Pine, Thanks for your comment and careful reading. My piece of advice for Olivia is suposed to be rhetorical : I doubt she would have to modifiy herself her own page, as it's been proven that her birthdate was plain right all along the page history. My point was more to highlight the fact that a large number of people believe that a supposedly uncorrect fact on Wikipedia cannot be modified easily and one has to "send an email". And that journalists that publish this nonsense aren't aware either of the "anyone can edit" part of Wikipedia (in 2019!). Now, if a conflict of interest policy prevents you to provide a reliable secondary source about a factual point such as your own birthdate and edit Wikipedia accordingly, I find it would be a harsh conflict of interest policy. As a matter of fact WP : COI does not prevent to directly edit oneself : it suggests (along with your recommandations) to disclaim it in the edit summary. (And the "dealing with articles about yourself" link provided by Avery (thanks for that) is also open to that possibility. I would even find it harsh to argue that such an edit would "undermine the interests of the encyclopedia".
Hi Alexandre,
Thanks for reminding me that placing a COI disclosure in an edit summary is okay. I forgot that policy allows that. I would have recommended that your op-ed say something like "Some advice for Olivia Colman: she can edit Wikipedia herself (and provide conflict of interest notifications and links to reliable sources where appropriate), or request an edit by noting the issue on the article's talk page, or send an email to Wikipedia's volunteer response team to request a correction."
In the case of someone who wants to use a potentially nonpublic document like a birth certificate as their reliable source, I think that sending an email to OTRS would be a good option, because the requester can email a copy of the birth certificate to OTRS without needing to make the certificate be public. Alternatively, if a birth certificate is an easily accessible public record of a government that issued it, or someone wants to use other public documents to support their claim, then I think that placing an edit request on the talk page or directly editing the article while including a COI notification and a reference would be good options.
I think that reminding people that they can edit the encyclopedia, and post comments on the talk page, are both generally good. But I also want to discourage COI editing of article content, especially when it is undisclosed, and I would not want to discourage people from emailing OTRS.
Regards,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:08 PM Alexandre Hocquet < alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
On 15/02/2019 19:37, Pine W wrote:
When I read your article I am concerned about this statement: "Some
advice
for Olivia Colman: rather than “sending an e-mail to Wikipedia”, she can edit Wikipedia herself, like everyone else". That comes across to me as encouraging violation of English Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest
guideline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. Can you explain why you encouraged directly editing Wikipedia instead of placing
an
edit request on the talk page or sending an email to OTRS?
Hey Pine, Thanks for your comment and careful reading. My piece of advice for Olivia is suposed to be rhetorical : I doubt she would have to modifiy herself her own page, as it's been proven that her birthdate was plain right all along the page history. My point was more to highlight the fact that a large number of people believe that a supposedly uncorrect fact on Wikipedia cannot be modified easily and one has to "send an email". And that journalists that publish this nonsense aren't aware either of the "anyone can edit" part of Wikipedia (in 2019!). Now, if a conflict of interest policy prevents you to provide a reliable secondary source about a factual point such as your own birthdate and edit Wikipedia accordingly, I find it would be a harsh conflict of interest policy. As a matter of fact WP : COI does not prevent to directly edit oneself : it suggests (along with your recommandations) to disclaim it in the edit summary. (And the "dealing with articles about yourself" link provided by Avery (thanks for that) is also open to that possibility. I would even find it harsh to argue that such an edit would "undermine the interests of the encyclopedia".
--
Alexandre Hocquet
Université de Lorraine & Archives Henri Poincaré Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr http://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Thank you for your own fact-checking. Not all of those publications are considered "reliable sources" by Wikipedia. It will be interesting to see if any of them prints a retraction, or if this gets added to her article as a "controversy".
For anyone who is interested, the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons does have a section on "Dealing with articles about yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself ".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealin...
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:08 PM Alexandre Hocquet < alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
Dear Education listers,
As a historian of science in higher education, I have been developping a course focusing on Wikipedia in recent years, and some may have heard of the WikiMOOC I presented at Wikimania MOntreal (though I only played a modest role in the WikiMOOC saga)
My course is pedagocally relying on anecdotes that say much about Wikipedia principles, Wikipedia comunity and how Wikipedia is regarded.
I am today very happy that my first anecdote in English has been published. It's about OLivia Colman's birthdate and how the press likes to ridicule Wikipedia, yet fact checking is actually done by Wikipedians instead of journalists, so I can't resist to self promote it here:
https://theconversation.com/no-wikipedia-didnt-get-actress-olivia-colmans-bi...
Comments welcome
Alexandre Hocquet
Université de Lorraine & Archives Henri Poincaré Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr http://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Very interesting! Thank you for sharing!
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019, 1:54 PM Avery Jensen averydjensen@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for your own fact-checking. Not all of those publications are considered "reliable sources" by Wikipedia. It will be interesting to see if any of them prints a retraction, or if this gets added to her article as a "controversy".
For anyone who is interested, the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons does have a section on "Dealing with articles about yourself < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealin...
".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealin...
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:08 PM Alexandre Hocquet < alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
Dear Education listers,
As a historian of science in higher education, I have been developping a course focusing on Wikipedia in recent years, and some may have heard of the WikiMOOC I presented at Wikimania MOntreal (though I only played a modest role in the WikiMOOC saga)
My course is pedagocally relying on anecdotes that say much about Wikipedia principles, Wikipedia comunity and how Wikipedia is regarded.
I am today very happy that my first anecdote in English has been published. It's about OLivia Colman's birthdate and how the press likes to ridicule Wikipedia, yet fact checking is actually done by Wikipedians instead of journalists, so I can't resist to self promote it here:
https://theconversation.com/no-wikipedia-didnt-get-actress-olivia-colmans-bi...
Comments welcome
Alexandre Hocquet
Université de Lorraine & Archives Henri Poincaré Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr http://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
On 15/02/2019 22:54, Avery Jensen wrote:
Thank you for your own fact-checking. Not all of those publications are considered "reliable sources" by Wikipedia.
Thanks Avery, The careful (hyperlink-savvy) reader will find a hidden tribute to the best UN-reliable newspaper in the world, as awarded by Wikipedia :)
In that case, all the citations in your piece should be able to pass any edit filters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive...
Thanks for the chuckle.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:15 PM Alexandre Hocquet < alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
On 15/02/2019 22:54, Avery Jensen wrote:
Thank you for your own fact-checking. Not all of those publications are considered "reliable sources" by Wikipedia.
Thanks Avery, The careful (hyperlink-savvy) reader will find a hidden tribute to the best UN-reliable newspaper in the world, as awarded by Wikipedia :)
--
Alexandre Hocquet
Université de Lorraine & Archives Henri Poincaré Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr http://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
"*what Wikipedia actually requires: not primary sources like birth certificates, but secondary ones https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2NVH21MEe0 – publicly available sources in which her birthdate is mentioned.*" -> This is not exactly true. That would be the kind of document that could be required by someone in OTRS in order to certify her birth date. And birth certificates are issued by official third party, reliable sources, so I don't see how can they be considered a "primary source". Unless you are talking about primary sources in History, but in that case those would often be the best possible sources one can use in a Wikipedia article.
Best, Paulo
Alexandre Hocquet alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr escreveu no dia sexta, 15/02/2019 à(s) 18:08:
Dear Education listers,
As a historian of science in higher education, I have been developping a course focusing on Wikipedia in recent years, and some may have heard of the WikiMOOC I presented at Wikimania MOntreal (though I only played a modest role in the WikiMOOC saga)
My course is pedagocally relying on anecdotes that say much about Wikipedia principles, Wikipedia comunity and how Wikipedia is regarded.
I am today very happy that my first anecdote in English has been published. It's about OLivia Colman's birthdate and how the press likes to ridicule Wikipedia, yet fact checking is actually done by Wikipedians instead of journalists, so I can't resist to self promote it here:
https://theconversation.com/no-wikipedia-didnt-get-actress-olivia-colmans-bi...
Comments welcome
Alexandre Hocquet
Université de Lorraine & Archives Henri Poincaré Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr http://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
On 16/02/2019 12:18, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
"/what Wikipedia actually requires: not primary sources like birth certificates, but secondary ones https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2NVH21MEe0 – publicly available sources in which her birthdate is mentioned./" -> This is not exactly true. That would be the kind of document that could be required by someone in OTRS in order to certify her birth date. And birth certificates are issued by official third party, reliable sources, so I don't see how can they be considered a "primary source". Unless you are talking about primary sources in History, but in that case those would often be the best possible sources one can use in a Wikipedia article.
Dear Paulo,
What constitutes a reliable source is a never-ending debate for wikipedians and historians alike. I tried to make that point in the Philip Roth anecdote
(you can find it here, it's in French, but I have added approximate English subtitles : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2NVH21MEe0 )
Is the open letter by Roth in the New Yorker a secondary source ? a reliable one ? And is the facebook post of Bliss Broyard a reliable source ? Is it becoming one when it is transcripted in the Salon magazine ? This is a very tricky point and the raging debates about it at the time show just that.
You can consider an "oficial" birthdate certificate a reliable source. I find it questionnable though, as many football players have several birthdates for example. (And to assure this point is not a post-colonialist one, It has been recently revealed that French police were deliberately falsificating immigrants papers to expel them).
But it is certainly not a secondary one. It is not published, so it's useless to being cited in Wikipedia, and even if some sort of public archive of birth certificates would exist, they would still be primary. The process of their production would have not be analysed by a "third party" as you name it.
Finaly, when OTRS require such papers, is not it to prove the identity of someone complaining in order to receive their claim, more than a piece of evidence to be inserted in an article ? If you have a counter-example, I'd be interested to check.
Yours,
Hello Alexandre,
I believe we would easily agree that an ID card presented by someone is by default and in general immensely more reliable than any newspaper or random biographer or historian stating whatever without mentioning what their source is. That's why I don't see the point of asking for secondary sources when the ID is available (either publicly or by OTRS).
As for public vs. private, easy example: Our local archives provide access to all existing/known birth certificates in my region (or christening certificates, when those are not available) from 1538 till 1940s: https://abm.madeira.gov.pt/pt/inicio/ . Why would anyone prefer some so called "secondary source" over them? Unless some very good case is made that the official document is falsified, which would rather be the very odd exception.
OTRS can be used to verify and certify any kind of private information, not only identity of people. In Wikipedia we generally and usually send people to OTRS when they want to prove such kind of thing as their birthdate, without having to expose publicly their IDs. As far as I know, that's how it works.
My understanding is that the question with primary sources in Wikipedia emanates from the confusion with primary "autobiographic" sources, which are often considered the ones with worst quality, and the historical primary sources (meaning the first original document that everybody quotes afterwards), which are generally the best and more reliable (except in the cases where some debate has been made about the reliability of some specific primary source, in which cases one can simply add the debate to the primary source information). My understanding and experience is that in historical terms, the quality of a source generally degrades with the number of times it is quoted and recycled, so that secondary sources would be generally worst, and tertiary sources, as paper encyclopedias and newspapers, would generally be the worst possible ones.
I know this "primary source" stuff still is an ongoing debate in some corners of the Wikipedias, but, frankly, I've never seen anything that would question the point that an historical primary source is in general, and in the absence of any reliable study countering it, the best possible one we can quote.
Best, Paulo
Alexandre Hocquet alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr escreveu no dia sábado, 16/02/2019 à(s) 14:32:
On 16/02/2019 12:18, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
"/what Wikipedia actually requires: not primary sources like birth certificates, but secondary ones https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2NVH21MEe0 – publicly available sources in which her birthdate is mentioned./" -> This is not exactly true. That would be the kind of document that could be required by someone in OTRS in order to certify her birth date. And birth certificates are issued by official third party, reliable sources, so I don't see how can they be considered a "primary source". Unless you are talking about primary sources in History, but in that case those would often be the best possible sources one can use in a Wikipedia article.
Dear Paulo,
What constitutes a reliable source is a never-ending debate for wikipedians and historians alike. I tried to make that point in the Philip Roth anecdote
(you can find it here, it's in French, but I have added approximate English subtitles : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2NVH21MEe0 )
Is the open letter by Roth in the New Yorker a secondary source ? a reliable one ? And is the facebook post of Bliss Broyard a reliable source ? Is it becoming one when it is transcripted in the Salon magazine ? This is a very tricky point and the raging debates about it at the time show just that.
You can consider an "oficial" birthdate certificate a reliable source. I find it questionnable though, as many football players have several birthdates for example. (And to assure this point is not a post-colonialist one, It has been recently revealed that French police were deliberately falsificating immigrants papers to expel them).
But it is certainly not a secondary one. It is not published, so it's useless to being cited in Wikipedia, and even if some sort of public archive of birth certificates would exist, they would still be primary. The process of their production would have not be analysed by a "third party" as you name it.
Finaly, when OTRS require such papers, is not it to prove the identity of someone complaining in order to receive their claim, more than a piece of evidence to be inserted in an article ? If you have a counter-example, I'd be interested to check.
Yours,
Alexandre Hocquet
Université de Lorraine & Archives Henri Poincaré Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr http://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
On 16/02/2019 21:30, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
Dear Paulo,
OTRS can be used to verify and certify any kind of private information, not only identity of people. In Wikipedia we generally and usually send people to OTRS when they want to prove such kind of thing as their birthdate, without having to expose publicly their IDs. As far as I know, that's how it works.
I confess that my knowlege of what is actually and routinely going on in OTRS is based on indirect (and partial) observation (and I'd like to know more about it) but I don't see how an example such as ours would work. What and where would be the cited reference in the article in such a change ?
the quality of a source generally degrades with the number of times it is quoted and recycled, so that secondary sources would be generally worst, and tertiary sources, as paper encyclopedias and newspapers, would generally be the worst possible ones.
Well I believe we disagree on the merits of primary and secondary sources then. I believe that the virtue of secondary sources lies in its analysis, which is supposed to be missing in the primary sources, not its quotation.
Hi there Alexandre,
Thanks for sharing. I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of your source for the line: *"**The major part of them come from representatives of actresses seeking to remove from the encyclopedia the (true) birthdate of their clients."*
Many thanks! Sara
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 04:54, Alexandre Hocquet < alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
On 16/02/2019 21:30, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
Dear Paulo,
OTRS can be used to verify and certify any kind of private information, not only identity of people. In Wikipedia we generally and usually send people to OTRS when they want to prove such kind of thing as their birthdate, without having to expose publicly their IDs. As far as I know, that's how it works.
I confess that my knowlege of what is actually and routinely going on in OTRS is based on indirect (and partial) observation (and I'd like to know more about it) but I don't see how an example such as ours would work. What and where would be the cited reference in the article in such a change ?
the quality of a source generally degrades with the number of times it is quoted and recycled, so that secondary sources would be generally worst, and tertiary sources, as paper encyclopedias and newspapers, would generally be the worst possible ones.
Well I believe we disagree on the merits of primary and secondary sources then. I believe that the virtue of secondary sources lies in its analysis, which is supposed to be missing in the primary sources, not its quotation.
--
Alexandre Hocquet
Université de Lorraine & Archives Henri Poincaré Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr http://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
On 18/02/2019 11:38, Sara Thomas wrote:
Hi there Alexandre,
Thanks for sharing. I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of your source for the line: /"//The major part of them come from representatives of actresses seeking to remove from the encyclopedia the (true) birthdate of their clients."/
Hi Sara, There is no published source to assert my point there (which would make a perfect candidate for {{citation needed}} template if it were a WP article). It is based on informal discussions with French wikipedians (and French chapter wikimedians).Thhere was a twitter thread at some point in the past but I was unable to dig it up when I tried to link my claim. Do you feel it's not the case ?
Hey there,
Ah, ok, thanks for that. I've never heard of this being the case, which is why I was interested to hear if there was any data behind it.
All the best, Sara
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 04:02, Alexandre Hocquet < alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
On 18/02/2019 11:38, Sara Thomas wrote:
Hi there Alexandre,
Thanks for sharing. I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of your source for the line: /"//The major part of them come from representatives of actresses seeking to remove from the encyclopedia the (true) birthdate of their clients."/
Hi Sara, There is no published source to assert my point there (which would make a perfect candidate for {{citation needed}} template if it were a WP article). It is based on informal discussions with French wikipedians (and French chapter wikimedians).Thhere was a twitter thread at some point in the past but I was unable to dig it up when I tried to link my claim. Do you feel it's not the case ?
--
Alexandre Hocquet
Université de Lorraine & Archives Henri Poincaré Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr http://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
Hello Alexandre,
Alexandre Hocquet alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr escreveu no dia segunda, 18/02/2019 à(s) 04:53:
On 16/02/2019 21:30, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
I confess that my knowlege of what is actually and routinely going on in OTRS is based on indirect (and partial) observation (and I'd like to know more about it) but I don't see how an example such as ours would work. What and where would be the cited reference in the article in such a change ?
Something around <ref>Birth certificate, see OTRS Ticket #2019021810005699 </ref> would probably do. At least that's what I would do, if I received such a ticket (I'm part of the OTRS team).
Well I believe we disagree on the merits of primary and secondary
sources then. I believe that the virtue of secondary sources lies in its analysis, which is supposed to be missing in the primary sources, not its quotation.
I don't believe we disagree, no, at least completely. Analysis, when available, is very useful, *in addition* to the primary source. But secondary sources that only parrot the original thing are absolutely worthless, IMO. In the case of Olivia Colman, the birth certificate, if available, would still be the best possible source, which could be complemented with any available analysis. Newspapers, biographers or historians simply stating her age out of the blue should be avoided, if possible, at least in the face of proper documentation about it.
Best regards, Paulo
On 18/02/2019 17:36, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
I don't believe we disagree, no, at least completely. Analysis, when
I guess you're right. I guess our argument is distorted by mixing general prinicples about proper sourcing and a particuler case that actually does not exist. It is my fault because I chose to turn an absurd rhetorical advice into a brief description of general wikipedian proceeedings "for dummies".