Concern about messaging about Wikipedia

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [libraries] Concern about...

What happened in GLAM in November?

Kathleen DeLaurenti

26 Sep 2019 26 Sep '19

4:55 p.m.

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. Best, Kathleen DeLaurenti

Attachments:

attachment.htm (text/html — 2.1 KB)

Show replies by thread

Federico Leva (Nemo)

26 Sep 26 Sep

6:02 p.m.

...

Merrilee Proffitt

6:53 p.m.

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:

...

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

Paul S. Wilson

7:16 p.m.

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:

...

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-…

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

Kathleen DeLaurenti

7:23 p.m.

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:

...

that

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/wikipedia-fake-academic-…

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

Paul S. Wilson

7:54 p.m.

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, 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

Kathleen DeLaurenti

7:57 p.m.

Thanks, Paul. That's the kind of information I was hoping to find. It's incredibly disheartening and I hope that it's something Wikipedia will reconsider. Best, Kathleen On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 1:55 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

>>> > "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

>>> > 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

Paul S. Wilson

7:59 p.m.

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:

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

Andy Mabbett

8 p.m.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 15:55, Kathleen DeLaurenti <kathleendelaurenti(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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.

Wikimedia UK's contact details are publicly available, on their website. They're quite an amenable bunch; why not write to them? -- Andy Mabbett 'pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Paul S. Wilson

8:01 p.m.

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

Merrilee Proffitt

8:11 p.m.

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

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

> >> > >> > >> 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

> >>> > >>> 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

Paul S. Wilson

8:24 p.m.

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 I agree. Citing tertiary sources is not academic. On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 1:12 PM Merrilee Proffitt <mproffitt(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:

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

Kathleen DeLaurenti

8:55 p.m.

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 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:

> > > > 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

> > > >>> > > > >>> 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

Paulo Santos Perneta

9:02 p.m.

Why would it be inappropriate to cite primary sources, like travel logs or property deeds? I do that all the time in Wikipedia. Not only are they good sources, but they generally are much more trustable than the secondary sources which just parrot them (often with typos and misquotes). I fully agree with Kathleen and Merrillee that Wikipedia is perfectly citable, if done properly (like using diffs for properly revised editions, and not a link to the article). The Wikipedia policy that has been mentioned here is about circular citations. It is correct, but is totally unrelated to this case. Wikipedia is not supposed to produce new knowledge, so it shouldn't be cited internally in any circumstance (at least that I can think of). OTOH, there's nothing against using proper Wikipedia citations outside Wikipedia. Even if there still is a lot of preconception about it, not only I believe it is doable, but that it should be an objective for us in the projects to provide some way to properly validate Wikipedia content for use in external sources. Best, Paulo Paul S. Wilson <paulscrawl(a)gmail.com> escreveu no dia quinta, 26/09/2019 à(s) 19:25:

...

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 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:

> > > > 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

> > >

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources…

> > >

> > > > > > > > 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

> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> 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

> > > >>> > > > >>> Having conversations about the veracity of online information

> > > >>> > > > >>> 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

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

Andy Mabbett

9:04 p.m.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 19:55, Kathleen DeLaurenti <kathleendelaurenti(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

In 2011, Wikipedia had more than 3500 citations across SCOPUS and WoS

How many of those were in works discussing Wikipedia?

...

does it do Wikipedia any good to be pushing the idea that it's a bad source?

This is a matter that you could raise on the talk page of the Wikipedia policy concerned. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Marks, Sara R

9:05 p.m.

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@gmail.com<mailto:paulscrawl@gmail.com>> wrote: Merillee, The originally cited context not "ANYTHING", but specifically, "an academic paper":

...

https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1177215917534711808<https://urlde… I agree. Citing tertiary sources is not academic. On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 1:12 PM Merrilee Proffitt <mproffitt@gmail.com<mailto:mproffitt@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@gmail.com<mailto:paulscrawl@gmail.com>> wrote:

Wikipedia POLICY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines<https://… On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:54 PM Paul S. Wilson <paulscrawl@gmail.com<mailto:paulscrawl@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@gmail.com<mailto:kathleendelaurenti@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@gmail.com<mailto:paulscrawl@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@gmail.com<mailto:mproffitt@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@gmail.com<mailto:nemowiki@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<https://urlde… > >>>> > > >>>> > 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@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:Libraries@lists.wikimedia.org> > >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries<https://urldefens… > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Libraries mailing list > >>> Libraries@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:Libraries@lists.wikimedia.org> > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries<https://urldefens… > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Libraries mailing list > >> Libraries@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:Libraries@lists.wikimedia.org> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries<https://urldefens… > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Libraries mailing list > > Libraries@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:Libraries@lists.wikimedia.org> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries<https://urldefens…

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:Libraries@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries<https://urldefens…

Andy Mabbett

9:08 p.m.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 20:04, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

...

does it do Wikipedia any good to be pushing the idea that it's a bad source?

This is a matter that you could raise on the talk page of the Wikipedia policy concerned.

Apologies, I meant to include the URL; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Kathleen DeLaurenti

9:12 p.m.

Hi all - The assumption that the citations are only about works discussing Wikipedia is just not true. Scientists and mathematicians cite it as a definition source on an increasing basis. I just did a quick WoS search and that was the majority of the examples I spot checked. And I'll say this again: it should be up to the peer review processes of publications to determine what appropriate citation sources are. Imagine publishing a scholarly article and then tweeting that it can't be cited in a newspaper or blog because its inappropriate. It's silly. Sara, I respect your community practices. But again, why should Wikipedia be asserting those for you? That should be up to other communities to decide. Wikipedia deciding to say this hurts the credibility of the site and undermines much of the labor of volunteers working to create it. Kathleen On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:05 PM Marks, Sara R <Sara_Marks(a)uml.edu> wrote:

...

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:

> > > > Wikipedia POLICY > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

<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$>

> > >

> > > > > > > > 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

> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> 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

> > > >>> > > > >>> Having conversations about the veracity of online information

> > > >>> > > > >>> 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

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.

> > > >>>> > Period. > > > >>>> > https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1177215917534711808

<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

Paul S. Wilson

9:12 p.m.

Common sense would apply WP Policy referenced above (quoted below) to both anonymous editors and academics: 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. On Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 1:12 PM Merrilee Proffitt <mproffitt(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

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 - >

> > > 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

> >>> > >>> Having conversations about the veracity of online information is

> >>> > >>> 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

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

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

Paulo Santos Perneta

9:13 p.m.

Just a small note to clarify that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia is an "how to" (help) file, and not an official policy. It doesn't support the notion that Wikipedia can't be academically cited - quite the opposite, indeed. Paulo Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> escreveu no dia quinta, 26/09/2019 à(s) 20:09:

...

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 20:04, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

>does it do Wikipedia any good to be pushing the idea that it's a bad

source?

This is a matter that you could raise on the talk page of the Wikipedia policy concerned.

Apologies, I meant to include the URL; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

Kathleen DeLaurenti

9:13 p.m.

Thanks, Andy. But I think Merilee appropriately clarified that the policy is about internal citations - not suggesting that other publications cannot cite or should not cite Wikipedia. KD On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:09 PM Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

...

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 20:04, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

>does it do Wikipedia any good to be pushing the idea that it's a bad

source?

This is a matter that you could raise on the talk page of the Wikipedia policy concerned.

Andy Mabbett

9:32 p.m.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 20:13, Kathleen DeLaurenti <kathleendelaurenti(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia

...

Thanks, Andy. But I think Merilee appropriately clarified that the policy is about internal citations - not suggesting that other publications cannot cite or should not cite Wikipedia.

Not the same page. Please see the one I referred to (and whose URL I quote above). -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Kathleen DeLaurenti

9:45 p.m.

Thanks Andy. Doing to many things at once. On Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 3:33 PM Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

...

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 20:13, Kathleen DeLaurenti <kathleendelaurenti(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia

Thanks, Andy. But I think Merilee appropriately clarified that the

policy is about

internal citations - not suggesting that other publications cannot cite

or should not

cite Wikipedia.

Not the same page. Please see the one I referred to (and whose URL I quote above). -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

Paul S. Wilson

10:32 p.m.

In an academic context, quaternary sources, those citing Wikipedia, itself a tertiary source, anonymously and with various degrees of accuracy and verifiability citing arbitrary secondary sources, themselves presumed to be authoritatively based on primary sources, are about as trustworthy as our President or Prime Minister. I have no faith. I read (and add) references, not articles. Math and computer science are exemplar exceptions; the humanities and the social sciences are comparatively hopeless for anything other than source discovery. On Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 2:45 PM Kathleen DeLaurenti < kathleendelaurenti(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks Andy. Doing to many things at once. On Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 3:33 PM Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 20:13, Kathleen DeLaurenti <kathleendelaurenti(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia

Thanks, Andy. But I think Merilee appropriately clarified that the

policy is about

internal citations - not suggesting that other publications cannot cite

or should not

cite Wikipedia.

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

Federico Leva (Nemo)

27 Sep 27 Sep

7:25 a.m.

Kathleen DeLaurenti, 26/09/19 22:12:

...

The assumption that the citations are only about works discussing Wikipedia is just not true. Scientists and mathematicians cite it as a definition source on an increasing basis.

Indeed. We could come up with other fields and examples of common usages. My main concern about saying "never cite Wikipedia" is that people end up obscuring their research process and hiding the actual provenance of what they're writing. Wikipedia mirrors which pretend not to be Wikipedia are legion, but there's also the simpler case of taking a quotation from Wikipedia and then pretending to have checked the actual source's full text. Even if you check the source of the quotation yourself, your paper is not made any better by being silent about the fact that you reached that passage only because the Wikipedia article mentioned it. The concept I usually cite in public, because it's clear enough even in a 10 min presentation, is "verifiability, not truth" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth>. This has been watered down in recent times but it's useful precisely because it's shocking to some people. You cannot use Wikipedia to prove something is true, because Wikipedia doesn't care about truth (sort of). However, you can and should be transparent about your thought process and research methods. Federico

Federico Leva (Nemo)

3 Dec 3 Dec

1:52 p.m.

Kathleen DeLaurenti, 26/09/19 17:55:

...

I see that some of those tweets were mentioned in a recent paper on the usage of Wikipedia in education. https://doi.org/10.11645/13.2.2669 Federico

Kerry Raymond

4 Dec 4 Dec

1:20 a.m.

Well, personally I don't think the tweet should have been sent. I think it sends the wrong signals and needs to be more nuanced. But, as a retired academic and active Wikipedia contributor (and reader), I am realistic about both academic publishing and contributing to Wikipedia. In general, I would agree that when writing academic papers, Wikipedia should not be the preferred citation for some fact. Ideally, the researcher would seek to obtain the material cited in the Wikipedia article, read it and cite it directly. But the world is not ideal. What if the Wikipedia article doesn't contain a citation for that fact? Or there is a citation but the work cited is not accessible (a dead link, a book only in a foreign library, perhaps in another language, etc). A basic principle of citation is "cite it where YOU saw it". So if a Wikipedia article is the best source you consulted in relation to that fact, then you should cite Wikipedia. OK, some publishers or teachers might not accept a work with a Wikipedia citation. There is nothing we can do about it, they control what it is published or what is acceptable for assessment. But if you are such a publisher or teacher, realise that the risk you run with this rule is that people might then cite the source cited by Wikipedia but without having read it for themselves. ("cite it where you DIDN'T see it"). It might look good to have all sources *appearing* to be reliable but it's dishonest and the reader can be misled. If Wikipedia was the source, then the readers deserves to know that and make their choice about whether they are comfortable accepting the fact on that basis. However, having said of all that, if the fact involved was central to the argument in an academic paper intended for publication in a reputable place, I would be very uncomfortable relying on a Wikipedia as a citation for that fact. But there are often parts of academic papers where the citation is less crucial to the central point and citing Wikipedia might be acceptable, particularly if weasel words are used. "It has been suggested that velvet cake originated in the Victorian era [cite Wikipedia]". It comes down to a decision of risk-management. The question we have to ask ourselves about any citation (including Wikipedia) is how much harm could be done as a consequence of that source being wrong? For a student writing a class assignment, nobody (apart from the teacher) is likely to ever read what it is written. Also they have a fairly narrow time window in which to do it, which limits their ability to obtain access to offline or deadlink works cited in the Wikipedia article about the fact. For the purposes of the class assignment, I see little risk in citing Wikipedia in such circumstances. I see great risk in other circumstances "Cancer can be cured by eating velvet cake [cite Wikipedia]" or "It has been suggested that cancer can be cured ..." going into a highly regarded medical journal. I love Wikipedia, I read it and I write it, but I don't think anyone should make big decisions about their lives or the lives of others solely upon it. This is why I am concerned about WikiData. It's easily queried, free to use, but we know very little about its coverage and completeness, and that makes it dangerous in the hands of those who don't understand that or who simply don't care. If people start using WikiData as a convenient source of data to draw some conclusion for some important purpose (and lazy political staffers come to mind as they often need to do things quickly and may not be interested in the truth but rather seeking "evidence" that will support a particular political view), I see serious consequences. As a simple example, we could do a query over Wikidata calculating the age at death (for anyone who has a birth and death date in WikiData) and use that to calculate average life expectancy and then use that in some political decision about not paying old age pensions until a later age or reducing health expenditure on children. Would such a Wikidata query really tell us anything about average life expectancy? Of course not, the people listed in Wikidata are not a random sample of the population. They are typically present for having some achievement (or notoriety), which suggests that they probably survived early childhood at least (it's hard to be a professional baseball player or be a serial killer as a toddler). So, all those people who died as babies are unlikely to make it into Wikidata and hence average life expectancy (based on Wikidata queries) will be higher than reality as infant mortality will be over-looked (as well as a lot of other factors that influence live expectancy). If you are worried about Wikipedia as a source, I suggest you worry a lot more about Wikidata as a source. Kerry -----Original Message----- From: Libraries [mailto:libraries-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Federico Leva (Nemo) Sent: Tuesday, 3 December 2019 10:53 PM To: Wikimedia & Libraries <libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org>rg>; Kathleen DeLaurenti <kathleendelaurenti(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [libraries] Concern about messaging about Wikipedia Kathleen DeLaurenti, 26/09/19 17:55:

...

I see that some of those tweets were mentioned in a recent paper on the usage of Wikipedia in education. https://doi.org/10.11645/13.2.2669 Federico _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

1616

days inactive

1685

days old

libraries@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

26 comments

8 participants

tags (0)

participants (8)

Andy Mabbett
Federico Leva (Nemo)
Kathleen DeLaurenti
Kerry Raymond
Marks, Sara R
Merrilee Proffitt
Paul S. Wilson
Paulo Santos Perneta