Ray Saintonge wrote,
David Gerard wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
There really should be different sourcing guidelines for different fields in Wikipedia - popular culture is just "different" to history, science or geography.
Some sort of referencing should be possible. For TV or movie synopses, the text itself as an implicit reference is obvious and sufficient, for example.
To some extent we can make use of "standard" references. The Internet Movie Data Base is a good example for movies, but that won't work for everything. Many subjects, however, are more controversial and the standards there need to be more stringent .
I agree that in certain areas we can make good use of "standard" references. However, this leads me to an issue that has concerned me for some time: the use of dictionaries and encyclopedias as sources.
I believe that dictionaries are authorities on the spelling and pronunciation of words. I also think they can be drawn on to account for how a word is "commonly" or "popularly" understood. But I am very strongly opposed to relying on them actually to define a term in Wikipedia -- at least, in areas of scholarly and professional concern. For example, OED may or may not have a good definition of "evolution." Regardless, I think the definition of "Evolution" in the "evolution" article should reflect the mainstream understanding of evolutionary scientists (I do NOT want to go into SPOV vs. NPOV; if it makes things easier, I have no problem with (1) specifying that this is how evolutionary scientists define it, and (2) mention that non-evolutionary scientists have other definitions). OED may or may not have a good definition of "imperialism." Regardless, I think the definition of "imperialism" in the "imperialism" article should reflect the mainstream understanding of political scientists and historians (and perhaps even politicians (again, I have no problem with (1) specifying that this is how scholars and professionals define it, and (2) mention that non-scholars scientists have other definitions). According to our "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy, we state that it is good to start articles with a definition. I think relying on dictionary definitions is (a) lazy (we are letting whoever wrote researched the dictionary do our research for us. This is not a problem when it comes to relying on books by scholars in writing an article, but dictionary definitions are the ultimate product of abstracting from various sources. This is precisely what our job should be), (b) redundant (anyone who has access to Wikipedia has access to OED online or Answers.com and can get a definition that way, and (c) may very well conflict with the body of the article, if we are drawing on sources written by scholars and professionals. I believe that the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" and the "Cite Sources" pages should be revised to address this.
Other encyclopedias are great ways to begin research, since they give us an idea of what an article on a topic could cover, and sometimes provides references we can turn to. I also think it is a useful exercise to compare our articles to those in other encyclopedias, just to get a sense as to whether we have missed something important. But I object to using articles from other encyclopedias as sources for our articles. It seems so patently absurd to me, it is hard to explain why -- except I know others do this regularly, so I have to. So okay, it comes down to similar reasons for my rejecting dictionaries as sources (at least, in areas of scholarly and professional concern). First, encyclopedia articles are the ultimate product of abstracting from various sources. This is precisely what our job should be. To rely on the research of others to me seems to devalue our own role as researchers. Second, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it seems terribly derivative to base our articles on the articles of other encyclopedias. Moreover, Wikipedia is an experiment in a new way of producing an encyclopedia; to rely on conventional encyclopedias seems to undermine our own integrity, what defines us as unique and special. I grant that there may be occasions in which other encyclopedias can (like the IMDB Ec mentions) be useful resources, but I think these cases should be the exceptions, not the rule. And I think we need to revise our policies to make this clear.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
The following was already sent in response privately to Steven who had initially sent this privately by accident. - Ec
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote,
David Gerard wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
There really should be different sourcing guidelines for different fields in Wikipedia - popular culture is just "different" to history, science or geography.
Some sort of referencing should be possible. For TV or movie synopses, the text itself as an implicit reference is obvious and sufficient, for example.
To some extent we can make use of "standard" references. The Internet Movie Data Base is a good example for movies, but that won't work for everything. Many subjects, however, are more controversial and the standards there need to be more stringent .
I agree that in certain areas we can make good use of "standard" references. However, this leads me to an issue that has concerned me for some time: the use of dictionaries and encyclopedias as sources.
I believe that dictionaries are authorities on the spelling and pronunciation of words. I also think they can be drawn on to account for how a word is "commonly" or "popularly" understood. But I am very strongly opposed to relying on them actually to define a term in Wikipedia -- at least, in areas of scholarly and professional concern. For example, OED may or may not have a good definition of "evolution." Regardless, I think the definition of "Evolution" in the "evolution" article should reflect the mainstream understanding of evolutionary scientists (I do NOT want to go into SPOV vs. NPOV; if it makes things easier, I have no problem with (1) specifying that this is how evolutionary scientists define it, and (2) mention that non-evolutionary scientists have other definitions). OED may or may not have a good definition of "imperialism." Regardless, I think the definition of "imperialism" in the "imperialism" article should reflect the mainstream understanding of political scientists and historians (and perhaps even politicians (again, I have no problem with (1) specifying that this is how scholars and professionals define it, and (2) mention that non-scholars scientists have other definitions). According to our "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy, we state that it is good to start articles with a definition. I think relying on dictionary definitions is (a) lazy (we are letting whoever wrote researched the dictionary do our research for us. This is not a problem when it comes to relying on books by scholars in writing an article, but dictionary definitions are the ultimate product of abstracting from various sources. This is precisely what our job should be), (b) redundant (anyone who has access to Wikipedia has access to OED online or Answers.com and can get a definition that way, and (c) may very well conflict with the body of the article, if we are drawing on sources written by scholars and professionals. I believe that the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" and the "Cite Sources" pages should be revised to address this.
Other encyclopedias are great ways to begin research, since they give us an idea of what an article on a topic could cover, and sometimes provides references we can turn to. I also think it is a useful exercise to compare our articles to those in other encyclopedias, just to get a sense as to whether we have missed something important. But I object to using articles from other encyclopedias as sources for our articles. It seems so patently absurd to me, it is hard to explain why -- except I know others do this regularly, so I have to. So okay, it comes down to similar reasons for my rejecting dictionaries as sources (at least, in areas of scholarly and professional concern). First, encyclopedia articles are the ultimate product of abstracting from various sources. This is precisely what our job should be. To rely on the research of others to me seems to devalue our own role as researchers. Second, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it seems terribly derivative to base our articles on the articles of other encyclopedias. Moreover, Wikipedia is an experiment in a new way of producing an encyclopedia; to rely on conventional encyclopedias seems to undermine our own integrity, what defines us as unique and special. I grant that there may be occasions in which other encyclopedias can (like the IMDB Ec mentions) be useful resources, but I think these cases should be the exceptions, not the rule. And I think we need to revise our policies to make this clear.
The key to being a good researcher is having the sense of judgement to decide what is applicable and relevant. Other encyclopedias can be a first source of information, not a last source. We are probably at a point where the information still available from easily accessible encyclopedias is close to being exhausted. It doesn't bother me if the first attempt at an article is based on one of these, as long as proper credit is given. I just randomly opened my 1903 "Encyclopedia Americana" and found a one paragraph biography on Frederick J. Crowest, an English writer and editor who was active at the time. We don't have an article on him, and, if I were so inclined to write one, I would not feel wrong to use that as a first source. I would nevertheless be curious to find out more. For one thing he was born in 1856. That made him 47 years old in 1903. How much longer did he live? The questions are more important than the answers. I thought that your statement above "I know others do this regularly, so I have to." was a little strange. At the risk of seeming a little like a scold I would respond that teaching a class of freshmen is not an excuse for acting like one. For the freshman who just came out of a high school system where he was never exposed to the idea of research or for the wikipedia editors who are now in high school it is an important first step forward. The rest of us need to be guides to higher standards. If a newbie comes along and writes a plausible article completely without references it's time to begin a dialogue, not the time to threaten punishment for what he doesn't understand. We also need to balance this Scylla with the Charybdis of "No Original Research"
In scientific philosophy terms a definition is not a falsifiable statement.. Many words have multiple meanings, and too many people feel that the sense of a word that they use should have pre-eminence. In political topics the result of that exercise can be outrageous. Specifying a definition at the beginning of an article is a good thing, because it sets boundaries around subsequent uses of the term in the article. When it comes to dictionary issues I tend to speak as one whose major activities are on Wiktionary. In many ways "evolution" has been hijacked by Darwinism; the word still has a lot of useful meaning outside of biology. I see a dictionary as primarily descriptive, including in matters of spelling and pronunciation. Which of those definitions you use is a matter of choice. If there is nothing suitable some people invent their own words; Rummel's use of the word "democide" is absolutely correct simply because that's the way he coined it.
Ec