I said this on Twitter but I want to say it here too -
no tertiary source
should be used in an academic paper unless that source is the subject of
the research. I wrote a thesis about Wikipedia and cited it hundreds of
times but no encyclopedia should be used in a college-level paper -
Brittanica, a subject-specific title, or WorldBook. Undergraduates need to
be taught the value of different information sources and Wikipedia has an
appropriate place in that discussion but it isn't the original research,
systematic review of research, or the original news source.
Why is Wikipedia cited in so many may times in SCOPUS or WoS? Because
people are doing research about Wikipedia and have been since it started.
Further, their audience isn't researchers - it's the general public. That
statement about never using it as a source is for students and the general
public, not sophisticated and experienced researchers who understand source
value and ranking.
Sara
Sara Marks
Librarian
O'Leary Library 260A
UMass Lowell
sara_marks(a)uml.edu
------------------------------
*From:* Libraries <libraries-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of
Kathleen DeLaurenti <kathleendelaurenti(a)gmail.com>
*Sent:* Thursday, September 26, 2019 2:55:05 PM
*To:* Wikimedia & Libraries
*Subject:* Re: [libraries] Concern about messaging about Wikipedia
Thanks Merilee for the clarification - things can get a little "meta" when
reading policies.
Paul, I still strongly disagree with the idea that Wikipedia should be
telling scholars how to use their work. In 2011, Wikipedia had more than
3500 citations across SCOPUS and WoS; I haven't checked to see what that
looks like almost a decade later. Does it do Wikipedia any good to be
pushing the idea that it's a bad source?
KD
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 2:25 PM Paul S. Wilson <paulscrawl(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
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
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1177215917534711808__;!lzD_24kfrJTG!4GH9F_QVT22etIN9QFrlPoZRjRvJwaR015mJ2B469XYQwR452zBo2SUVXmFHsm76$>
I agree. Citing tertiary sources is not academic.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 1:12 PM Merrilee Proffitt <mproffitt(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
The policy referred to is Wikipedia policy -- do not use Wikipedia as a
source for
new or existing Wikipedia articles. Not do not use Wikipedia
articles as a source for ANYTHING.
Top level guidelines are also to exercise common sense....
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:02 AM Paul S. Wilson <paulscrawl(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> You're welcome, Kathleen,
>
> It is frustrating, but but WP is not yet EB.
>
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:59 PM Paul S. Wilson <paulscrawl(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines__;!lzD_24kfrJTG!4GH9F_QVT22etIN9QFrlPoZRjRvJwaR015mJ2B469XYQwR452zBo2SUVXoFaEkqJ$>
> >
> > 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…
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability*Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it__;Iw!lzD_24kfrJTG!4GH9F_QVT22etIN9QFrlPoZRjRvJwaR015mJ2B469XYQwR452zBo2SUVXpynQ7o4$>
> > >
>> > > 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-…
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/wikipedia-fake-academic-journal?bftw&utm_term=4ldqpfp*4ldqpfp__;Iw!lzD_24kfrJTG!4GH9F_QVT22etIN9QFrlPoZRjRvJwaR015mJ2B469XYQwR452zBo2SUVXnV5Ecuk$>
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > 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.
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1177215917534711808__;!lzD_24kfrJTG!4GH9F_QVT22etIN9QFrlPoZRjRvJwaR015mJ2B469XYQwR452zBo2SUVXmFHsm76$>
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > I work very hard to improve the cite through my
courses and
academic
> > > >>>> > advocacy as
do many librarians. It's concern to me to see
Wikipedia
> > > >>>> > undermining
its own authority in such a public way in what
appears to be
> > > >>>> > a misguided
attempt to deflect association with the
MJournal site.
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > Would welcome any insight or ideas on how to navigate
this
discussion.
> > > >>>> > The entire
M-Journal use case exists, imho, because we are
still
> > > >>>> > battling for
a critical (not blanket acceptance) view of
Wiki as a
> > > >>>> > resources,
and I find this kind of public statement to be
very damaging
> > > >>>> > to the hard
work so many are doing to create a quality
information resource.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>> Libraries mailing list
> > > >>>> Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries__;!lzD_24kfrJTG!4GH9F_QVT22etIN9QFrlPoZRjRvJwaR015mJ2B469XYQwR452zBo2SUVXgJXqSFd$>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>> Libraries mailing list
> > > >>> Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries__;!lzD_24kfrJTG!4GH9F_QVT22etIN9QFrlPoZRjRvJwaR015mJ2B469XYQwR452zBo2SUVXgJXqSFd$>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Libraries mailing list
> > > >> Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries__;!lzD_24kfrJTG!4GH9F_QVT22etIN9QFrlPoZRjRvJwaR015mJ2B469XYQwR452zBo2SUVXgJXqSFd$>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Libraries mailing list
> > > > Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries__;!lzD_24kfrJTG!4GH9F_QVT22etIN9QFrlPoZRjRvJwaR015mJ2B469XYQwR452zBo2SUVXgJXqSFd$>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries__;!lzD_24kfrJTG!4GH9F_QVT22etIN9QFrlPoZRjRvJwaR015mJ2B469XYQwR452zBo2SUVXgJXqSFd$>
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries__;!lzD_24kfrJTG!4GH9F_QVT22etIN9QFrlPoZRjRvJwaR015mJ2B469XYQwR452zBo2SUVXgJXqSFd$>
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries__;!lzD_24kfrJTG!4GH9F_QVT22etIN9QFrlPoZRjRvJwaR015mJ2B469XYQwR452zBo2SUVXgJXqSFd$>
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org