On 6/19/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
....
And it is not just finding sources. It is
necessary to find multiple
sources in a thorough way, and see what part of the article can be
supported, and then do the secondary research necessary to rewrite the
article. How many WP editors know how to do this properly? How many of
the enthusiasts working on popular culture actually know how to do an
adequate job filling the gaps there?
A drive to rapidly source articles will get low-quality sourcing--will
get sourcing from what printed textbook happens to be handy which sort
of covers the general subject. How were these articles written--many
from the old Enc Brittanica, which in turn was written by people who
did have access to the proper libraries. We cannot update them without
similar facilities.
On the other hand, examine the German WP-- most article are not
sourced or are sketchily sourced, and yet of of an average quality way
beyond us. Their popular culture is concise summaries of what's
important, not long rambling sometimes careless plot summaries. My
German has been getting much better since I followed some good advice
to check there when needed.
Obviously we want higher standards, but we should not aim beyond our
capabilities, and we should not ask for things beyond the actual
interests of the WP editors in the project.
You raise a very important point. I often wonder about the extent to
which students are taught research skills. Until they are old enough to
attend many do not know what wonderful resources may be available in a
local university. I often seem to detect an anti-elitism streak among
some editors.
Maybe we need some kind of "how to research" instruction to be made
available. It would need to recognize that the amount of sourcing
needed will indeed vary according to the subject. The common
fundamentals of a science that is taught in the schools can adequately
be referenced by listing a few popular textbooks without the need to
document in detail every single statement. On the other hand,
controversial political issues require far more support.
Hmm. Sounds like a Wikimania workshop to me, and/or a series of workshops
online. Perhaps a wider support network being built between those with
access to resources and those without, or some research done into what
editors really *need* to source comprehensively (access? training?
motivation through policy or culture? all of this?) ... The problem is a big
one, with differences and subtleties depending on the article topic and the
language of research, and our sourcing troubles won't be easily solved by
either a "let's delete it all tomorrow" or a "let's let it all sit
around"
approach -- I think it's pretty clear that neither entirely works.
For constructive efforts: did anyone happen to go to Gary Price and j
Baumgart's presentation at the last Wikimania on finding good sources*? If
so did you find it useful? Would things like this be helpful in the future?
phoebe
*http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:JKB1