-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
I don't get it. Journalism follows one practice, academic research another. I think Wikipedia follows a modified version of latter.
In journalism, stories are published with no indication of the source other than the reporter's name (or the name of the wire service). _Sources are not cited_. We rely on the newspaper's editorial staff, the newspaper's reputation, and the reporter's responsibility to the profession of journalism to follow appropriate standards to insure that most of what we read is true. We usually have no way of directly evaluating what's behind any story.
And that it why you shouldn't trust them :)
In academic research, every source is cited in a way that allows the reader to verify it personally. Every fact that appears in a paper is either the personal testimony of the author of the paper, we did thus and such, we saw thus and such, we concluded thus and such. _Or, it is a source citation._ These source citations are usually journal references, but may occasionally be "personal communications." The journals and sources are simply _named._ Sez who? Sez Frotz and Glotz 1989, Zeitschrift für Krankschaft und Geerschift, 22(6):116-122. In most cases the reader can easily verify that the Zeitschrift exists and that pages 116-122 of that number have that article and that it says what the paper's author says it says.
Yes, that it good...
_It is left completely up to the reader to know whether or not the Zeitschrift is a peer reviewed journal or not, what its reputation is, and whether Frotz and Glotz are competent_.
That will depend on where you read what Frotz and Glotz have written. If it is a peer-reviewed journal, book etc. the editors /should/ have checked all that.
I completely fail to see _any problem in general_ in citing USENET as a source, provided an actual citation is given so the reader can verify that the posting says what the article says it says.
Neither do I. If we have an article saying "Linus talked to Fred", and we got that off USENET, it is OK. It is a *fact* that a person called Linus posted something to Fred via USENET.
That does not mean that a statement citing USENET should necessarily go in an article, or that citing USENET, or The New York Times, or _Nature_, waves a magic wand over a passage that protects it from criticism, discussion, replacement, or deletion.
But if the article is about USENET, we take USENET as the source... if the article is about NYT, take NYT as a source... if the article is about /Nature/, take /Nature/ as a source. USENET is possibly more reliable in this sense because the archives are obtainable so easily. To check a fact in a NYT article, I need to travel 30km to a library, see if they have the relevant edition, and then use a microfiche/film reader to see it. *Perhaps* the library has a hard copy, or the content is available online, but I don't know for certain. USENET is *more* reliable in this case.
A good example of what I think to be an entirely appropriate use of USENET is in tracking the approximate time when phrases or neologisms or memes became current in the Internet community.
Up until 1994, yes.
Conversely, The Boston Globe might carry a story quoting sources criticizing a judge. That would be a very reliable source. That does NOT mean that it would automatically be appropriate for a Wikipedia article to say ANY of these things:
You trust what commercial newspapers (or any commercial new sources) say? I don't.
*Judge so-and-so lacks proper judicial demeanor.
*Judge so-and-so was criticized for lacking proper judicial demeanor.
*On day so-and-so, page so-and-so, the Boston Globe quoted so-and-so as saying Judge so-and-so is "a very passionate woman, and is not afraid to go and dance and have a couple of glasses of wine and have a good time. She's not your typical judge."
The third form is a valid citation, but may or may not be appropriate to the context of an article.
That would be removed for being dodgy english, not a defamatory statement. If we said "USA Today published claims that Judge so-and-so was a dirty scoundrel", *and* it was relevant, I think it could stay in. Remember, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a lonely housewifes ramblings on the world. NPOV means facts, which are axiomatically neutral, not opinions, which are axiomatically biased.
- -- Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis