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