An interesting point that came up in conversation with presroi on IRC. Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974
Anyone interested in writing up our year articles as decent history articles, as well as the lists of stuff?
- d.
On 3/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
An interesting point that came up in conversation with presroi on IRC. Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974
Anyone interested in writing up our year articles as decent history articles, as well as the lists of stuff?
Clever approach (usually seen in published yearbooks), but the by-country breakdown at the core of it won't really work for years where major (for some suitably vague definition of major) things happen, like 1942.
Kirill Lokshin
On Mar 23, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On 3/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
An interesting point that came up in conversation with presroi on IRC. Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974
Anyone interested in writing up our year articles as decent history articles, as well as the lists of stuff?
Clever approach (usually seen in published yearbooks), but the by-country breakdown at the core of it won't really work for years where major (for some suitably vague definition of major) things happen, like 1942.
You can add a separate section, like "World War II", for those occurrences.
On 3/23/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Mar 23, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On 3/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
An interesting point that came up in conversation with presroi on IRC. Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974
Anyone interested in writing up our year articles as decent history articles, as well as the lists of stuff?
Clever approach (usually seen in published yearbooks), but the by-country breakdown at the core of it won't really work for years where major (for some suitably vague definition of major) things happen, like 1942.
You can add a separate section, like "World War II", for those occurrences.
You can; but that section, if it were anything other than a list, would be redundant with the corresponding section in [[World War II]].
Kirill Lokshin
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:20:46 +0100, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/23/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Mar 23, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On 3/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
An interesting point that came up in conversation with presroi on IRC. Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974
Anyone interested in writing up our year articles as decent history articles, as well as the lists of stuff?
Clever approach (usually seen in published yearbooks), but the by-country breakdown at the core of it won't really work for years where major (for some suitably vague definition of major) things happen, like 1942.
You can add a separate section, like "World War II", for those occurrences.
You can; but that section, if it were anything other than a list, would be redundant with the corresponding section in [[World War II]].
I would think just a couple of sentences followed by {{main|World War II}} or simmilar would be sufficient in such cases.
On 3/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
An interesting point that came up in conversation with presroi on IRC. Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974Anyone interested in writing up our year articles as decent history articles, as well as the lists of stuff?
Wow - that's really impressive.
If reliable sources can't be cited, does that make the information original research? I mean, I can document periods of my life citing my website and other online sources, but those aren't reliable, are they? Therefore I'm creating original research, aren't I?
Steve Block
On 3/24/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
If reliable sources can't be cited, does that make the information original research? I mean, I can document periods of my life citing my
Depends what "can't" means. Information that has been published, but for which you do not have access to the source, is not original research.
website and other online sources, but those aren't reliable, are they? Therefore I'm creating original research, aren't I?
Arguably yes, but that's more of a collateral damage case than what WP:NOR is really trying to prevent. The information would more likely be removed for violating WP:V.
(as I understand it)
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/24/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
If reliable sources can't be cited, does that make the information original research? I mean, I can document periods of my life citing my
Depends what "can't" means. Information that has been published, but for which you do not have access to the source, is not original research.
I mean there are no reliable sources, not that I can't personally access them.
website and other online sources, but those aren't reliable, are they? Therefore I'm creating original research, aren't I?
Arguably yes, but that's more of a collateral damage case than what WP:NOR is really trying to prevent. The information would more likely be removed for violating WP:V.
Well, I'm going by ''Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".''
So creating a narrative which doesn't exist elsewhere, for example citing blog entries to create a story, that's clearly original research, yes?
Steve Block
On 3/24/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Well, I'm going by ''Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".''
So creating a narrative which doesn't exist elsewhere, for example citing blog entries to create a story, that's clearly original research, yes?
Imagine you have three blogs which refer to a sequence of events. One blog has events A and B, and the other two have C, and D and E respectively. You simple sequence those events in chronological order, referring copiously. I don't believe it's a "novel" narrative to create an article which simply documents that the sequence of events A, E, B, C, D took place.
If you start saying B took place because of E (although no blog specifically said that), or start drawing parallels between events A/E and C/D, then you start heading into dangerous territory.
These rules were drawn up to ward off kooks, historical revisionists etc. Not good faith attempts are documenting uncontroversial, but little documented facts. IMHO.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/24/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Well, I'm going by ''Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".''
So creating a narrative which doesn't exist elsewhere, for example citing blog entries to create a story, that's clearly original research, yes?
Imagine you have three blogs which refer to a sequence of events. One blog has events A and B, and the other two have C, and D and E respectively. You simple sequence those events in chronological order, referring copiously. I don't believe it's a "novel" narrative to create an article which simply documents that the sequence of events A, E, B, C, D took place.
If you start saying B took place because of E (although no blog specifically said that), or start drawing parallels between events A/E and C/D, then you start heading into dangerous territory.
Okay, but imagine you have one blog, which describes said blogger doing a, b and c. Is that permissable? Because if it is, then it's permissable to game Wikipedia, to my mind, in that anything documented online is fair game.
To my mind, a novel narrative is one that can not be verified independent of the events themselves.
On 3/24/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Okay, but imagine you have one blog, which describes said blogger doing a, b and c. Is that permissable? Because if it is, then it's permissable to game Wikipedia, to my mind, in that anything documented online is fair game.
No, of course it's not. Blogs aren't generally good sources anyway - I was just ignoring that fact for convenience :)
To my mind, a novel narrative is one that can not be verified independent of the events themselves.
Well, I don't see that any "narrative" can be "verified" as such, other than by reference to someone who's already published it. "Novel" I would restrict to something controversial...
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/24/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Okay, but imagine you have one blog, which describes said blogger doing a, b and c. Is that permissable? Because if it is, then it's permissable to game Wikipedia, to my mind, in that anything documented online is fair game.
No, of course it's not. Blogs aren't generally good sources anyway - I was just ignoring that fact for convenience :)
To my mind, a novel narrative is one that can not be verified independent of the events themselves.
Well, I don't see that any "narrative" can be "verified" as such, other than by reference to someone who's already published it. "Novel" I would restrict to something controversial...
See, to me if the narrative is unverifiable, then it's not allowable per [[WP:V]]. Novel, to me, indicates new.
Steve Block
On 3/27/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
See, to me if the narrative is unverifiable, then it's not allowable per [[WP:V]]. Novel, to me, indicates new.
New means new, novel means novel. Or more specifically, "different, original, creative" etc. As I argued earlier, arranging events in chronological order is not different, original, or creative. But it could be "new" if no one had actually published such a chronology. Arguing causalities, attempting to draw inferences or patterns "Most of the events in Smith's life revolved around prostitutes" etc, would be novel.
Steve
On 3/24/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Okay, but imagine you have one blog, which describes said blogger doing a, b and c. Is that permissable? Because if it is, then it's permissable to game Wikipedia, to my mind, in that anything documented online is fair game.
A blog is allowed to be used as a source in an article about the blogger (but not anywhere else), so long as the material used is only about that blogger and not about third parties; is notable; is not unduly self-aggrandizing; is not contradicted by third-party sources; and so long as there's no reasonable doubt about the blogger's identity. And of course, there must be reliable third-party source material available about that blogger before a Wikipedia entry would be justified in the first place.
Those restrictions reduce the extent to which someone can game our policies by sticking material up on their personal website, then insisting it be used as a source in Wikipedia.
Sarah
Now you are getting into citing published material. However, doing so to advance a novel idea would remain original research.
Fred
On Mar 24, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Steve Block wrote:
So creating a narrative which doesn't exist elsewhere, for example citing blog entries to create a story, that's clearly original research, yes?
Steve Block
But if you are citing this idea from published material it is no longer a novel idea. Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Now you are getting into citing published material. However, doing so to advance a novel idea would remain original research.
Fred
On Mar 24, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Steve Block wrote:
So creating a narrative which doesn't exist elsewhere, for example citing blog entries to create a story, that's clearly original research, yes?
Steve Block
On Mar 24, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Steve Block wrote:
So creating a narrative which doesn't exist elsewhere, for example citing blog entries to create a story, that's clearly original research, yes?
Fred Bauder wrote:
Now you are getting into citing published material. However, doing so to advance a novel idea would remain original research.
So a blog entry is deemed to be a publication? Is any given blog deemed a publication and a reliable source? And what then is a novel idea? I can construct a narrative from blog postings, would this be a novel idea?
Steve Block
On 3/27/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
On Mar 24, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Steve Block wrote:
So creating a narrative which doesn't exist elsewhere, for example citing blog entries to create a story, that's clearly original research, yes?
Fred Bauder wrote:
Now you are getting into citing published material. However, doing so to advance a novel idea would remain original research.
So a blog entry is deemed to be a publication? Is any given blog deemed a publication and a reliable source?
Nope. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. They can be certainly be used as sources in articles about those specific blogs, and can be quoted if the authors themselves are famous individuals, but in general they should be avoided.
And what then is a novel idea? I
can construct a narrative from blog postings, would this be a novel idea?
Yes.
Jay.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/24/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
If reliable sources can't be cited, does that make the information original research? I mean, I can document periods of my life citing my
Depends what "can't" means. Information that has been published, but for which you do not have access to the source, is not original research.
website and other online sources, but those aren't reliable, are they? Therefore I'm creating original research, aren't I?
Arguably yes, but that's more of a collateral damage case than what WP:NOR is really trying to prevent. The information would more likely be removed for violating WP:V.
(as I understand it)
I have a hard time with the rigidity of NOR. It seems to me that the application of the current form of NOR is over-paranoid, and misguided, apparently from some fear of having to back up information. Print or other publication does not imbue information with validity. Limiting WP sources to published sources has some serious implication to the goal of being free and open and cataloging all human knowledge. It presumes that all worthwhile information is published (and likewise infers that all published information is worthwhile).
To me, "original research" is when I perform an investigative task involving the scientific or statistical methods to get information that has not been determined before.
Here's some examples.
1. I drive up to Seattle, and stand outside Boeing Field, and count the number of planes that fly in and out over the period of a day.
2. I call Boeing Field on the phone and ask them how many planes fly in and out every day.
3. I find a website, newspaper article, or book about Boeing Field and find the number.
To me, 1 is clearly OR, and 2 is not. And between 2 and 3, 2 is preferable because it is assuredly a) a primary source and b) current, which isn't at all assured with 3.
For some reason, though, contacting an authoritative source is OR, but finding a book from an authoritative source is not.
KT
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/24/06, Keith D. Tyler keith@keithtyler.com wrote:
To me, "original research" is when I perform an investigative task involving the scientific or statistical methods to get information that has not been determined before.
Here's some examples.
- I drive up to Seattle, and stand outside Boeing Field, and count the number
of planes that fly in and out over the period of a day.
- I call Boeing Field on the phone and ask them how many planes fly in and out
every day.
To me, 1 is clearly OR, and 2 is not ...
For some reason, though, contacting an authoritative source is OR, but finding a book from an authoritative source is not.
That's because if you cite a published source, readers can easily check that it says what you say it does. They can't easily check that the guy on the phone told you 500 planes fly in and out every day.
Sarah
--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/24/06, Keith D. Tyler keith@keithtyler.com wrote:
To me, "original research" is when I perform an investigative task involving the scientific or statistical methods to get information that has not been determined before.
Here's some examples.
- I drive up to Seattle, and stand outside Boeing Field, and count the number
of planes that fly in and out over the period of a day.
- I call Boeing Field on the phone and ask them how many planes fly in and out
every day.
To me, 1 is clearly OR, and 2 is not ...
For some reason, though, contacting an authoritative source is OR, but finding a book from an authoritative source is not.
That's because if you cite a published source, readers can easily check that it says what you say it does. They can't easily check that the guy on the phone told you 500 planes fly in and out every day.
Personal communications are valid to cite. All one needs to do to check is call the guy and ask the same question.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 3/26/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/24/06, Keith D. Tyler keith@keithtyler.com wrote:
To me, "original research" is when I perform an investigative task involving the scientific or statistical methods to get information that has not been determined before.
Here's some examples.
- I drive up to Seattle, and stand outside Boeing Field, and count the number
of planes that fly in and out over the period of a day.
- I call Boeing Field on the phone and ask them how many planes fly in and out
every day.
To me, 1 is clearly OR, and 2 is not ...
For some reason, though, contacting an authoritative source is OR, but finding a book from an authoritative source is not.
That's because if you cite a published source, readers can easily check that it says what you say it does. They can't easily check that the guy on the phone told you 500 planes fly in and out every day.
Personal communications are valid to cite. All one needs to do to check is call the guy and ask the same question.
No, of course personal communications are not valid to cite. You can cite reliable published sources.
Jay.
--- jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
No, of course personal communications are not valid to cite. You can cite reliable published sources.
When they exist, yes. But that is not always the case. Sometimes one must rely on what reputable people say vs what they write. I've cited professors whose classes I've taken. Is that wrong?
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Not if it can be verified by anyone.
k
On 3/26/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
No, of course personal communications are not valid to cite. You can cite reliable published sources.
When they exist, yes. But that is not always the case. Sometimes one must rely on what reputable people say vs what they write. I've cited professors whose classes I've taken. Is that wrong?
-- mav
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/26/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
No, of course personal communications are not valid to cite. You can cite reliable published sources.
When they exist, yes. But that is not always the case. Sometimes one must rely on what reputable people say vs what they write. I've cited professors whose classes I've taken. Is that wrong?
Hi Daniel, all our sources must be published in some form. If your professors have published the same material in a book or paper, we can use that, but not if they simply say it in a classroom situation. The key to whether a source is citable on Wikipedia is (a) whether it's in the public domain, and (b) whether there's some form of third-party editorial oversight, no matter how minimal, as there is when an editor goes through a book prior to publication, or when a newspaper copy editor checks a news story for factual errors or legal problems. In the case of a professor giving a lecture, the quality of the material is the same as in a self-published book or personal website, where there are no third-party checks. Self-published material is only allowed to be used in articles about the professor himself, and only if he is speaking about himself and not about any third party. There are exceptions if the professor is well known, but even then the self-published material must be in the public domain. It can't be an oral communication, because then readers have no way of checking that you've communicated it accurately, or that the professor stands by what he said. See [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]].
Sarah
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
No, of course personal communications are not valid to cite. You can cite reliable published sources.
When they exist, yes. But that is not always the case. Sometimes one must rely on what reputable people say vs what they write. I've cited professors whose classes I've taken. Is that wrong?
According to [[WP:V]], absolutely.
A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.
Why not? Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?
For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review. It would be checked by a reporter, an editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it might be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. These checks and balances exist to ensure that accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper.
On 3/26/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Personal communications are valid to cite. All one needs to do to check is call the guy and ask the same question.
All our sources have to be published, Daniel, i.e. in the public domain, so a personal communication can't be cited.
Sarah
--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Personal communications are valid to cite. All one needs to do to check is call the guy and
ask the same question.
All our sources have to be published, Daniel, i.e. in the public domain, so a personal communication can't be cited.
That is absurd since not all knowledge has been written. What matters is if you can trust the source and if it is verifiable. The method of communication is not that important.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Personal communications are valid to cite. All one needs to do to check is call the guy and
ask the same question.
All our sources have to be published, Daniel, i.e. in the public domain, so a personal communication can't be cited.
That is absurd since not all knowledge has been written. What matters is if you can trust the source and if it is verifiable. The method of communication is not that important.
If it's extremely important and not available elsewhere I suppose I could see citing personal communication, but in general I'd be wary of it precisely because it's *not* particularly easily verifiable. The source, often in another country, might not be easily reachable, and is likely not immortal. This is also true, of course, of particularly obscure and hard-to-acquire books; in both cases, preference should be made for more widely-available sources.
As an added bonus, widely-available sources tend to be more authoritative and reviewed by more people in the field, who have the opportunity to point out errors.
-Mark
Keith D. Tyler wrote:
- I call Boeing Field on the phone and ask them how many planes fly in and out
every day.
Thanks, but no thanks. This has all kinds of verifiability problem - who answers the phone? Are they working from records, or BSing you from memory so as to get you to hang up and stop bothering them? What if I call them later, and get a different answer; do I delete your number as out of date, or start accumulating a long list of answers from random phone calls?
There are millions of good print resources in the world; I'd be happy if people actually finished the job of representing their content in WP, rather than fool around with marginal cases.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Keith D. Tyler wrote:
- I call Boeing Field on the phone and ask them how many planes fly in and out
every day.
Thanks, but no thanks. This has all kinds of verifiability problem - who answers the phone? Are they working from records, or BSing you from memory so as to get you to hang up and stop bothering them? What if I call them later, and get a different answer; do I delete your number as out of date, or start accumulating a long list of answers from random phone calls?
Excellent question. And the answer is the same as what you would do if different published sources have different numbers, or what you would do if a verifiable web site was updated with new numbers since the time it's information was added to WP.
Attributable personal contact to an identifiable authority does not introduce new problems that don't already present themselves in the approved methods of research. The notion that a personal contact results in irreconcilability or potential for inaccuracy is a disingenuous straw man. If these were issues isolated to personal contact, I could see the problem. But they simply and plainly are not; they occur in print and online sourcing as well.
Kdt
There are millions of good print resources in the world; I'd be happy if people actually finished the job of representing their content in WP, rather than fool around with marginal cases.
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes but in written sources you have just that - a written record of what was said and who said it. That is the difference in credibility between an official press release by the airport and you phoning up some bozo in the airport's customer services department
Cynical
Keith D. Tyler wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Keith D. Tyler wrote:
- I call Boeing Field on the phone and ask them how many planes fly in and out
every day.
Thanks, but no thanks. This has all kinds of verifiability problem - who answers the phone? Are they working from records, or BSing you from memory so as to get you to hang up and stop bothering them? What if I call them later, and get a different answer; do I delete your number as out of date, or start accumulating a long list of answers from random phone calls?
Excellent question. And the answer is the same as what you would do if different published sources have different numbers, or what you would do if a verifiable web site was updated with new numbers since the time it's information was added to WP.
Attributable personal contact to an identifiable authority does not introduce new problems that don't already present themselves in the approved methods of research. The notion that a personal contact results in irreconcilability or potential for inaccuracy is a disingenuous straw man. If these were issues isolated to personal contact, I could see the problem. But they simply and plainly are not; they occur in print and online sourcing as well.
Kdt
There are millions of good print resources in the world; I'd be happy if people actually finished the job of representing their content in WP, rather than fool around with marginal cases.
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Alexander Russell wrote:
Yes but in written sources you have just that - a written record of what was said and who said it. That is the difference in credibility between an official press release by the airport and you phoning up some bozo in the airport's customer services department
Cynical
That's not at all true of Web sites, and anyone who's been on it for any significant period of time knows this. Web sites are very dynamic and pages and even whole sites often disappear without a trace (notwithstanding Google cache and Internet Archive).
What happens if I use as a reference a website that has disappeared in the time since I added the information? It then becomes unverifiable. Presumably the info, like the website it was sourced from, must disappear?
Kdt
Keith D. Tyler wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Keith D. Tyler wrote:
- I call Boeing Field on the phone and ask them how many planes fly in and out
every day.
Thanks, but no thanks. This has all kinds of verifiability problem - who answers the phone? Are they working from records, or BSing you from memory so as to get you to hang up and stop bothering them? What if I call them later, and get a different answer; do I delete your number as out of date, or start accumulating a long list of answers from random phone calls?
Excellent question. And the answer is the same as what you would do if different published sources have different numbers, or what you would do if a verifiable web site was updated with new numbers since the time it's information was added to WP.
Attributable personal contact to an identifiable authority does not introduce new problems that don't already present themselves in the approved methods of research. The notion that a personal contact results in irreconcilability or potential for inaccuracy is a disingenuous straw man. If these were issues isolated to personal contact, I could see the problem. But they simply and plainly are not; they occur in print and online sourcing as well.
Kdt
There are millions of good print resources in the world; I'd be happy if people actually finished the job of representing their content in WP, rather than fool around with marginal cases.
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/26/06, Keith D. Tyler keith@keithtyler.com wrote:
What happens if I use as a reference a website that has disappeared in the time since I added the information? It then becomes unverifiable. Presumably the info, like the website it was sourced from, must disappear?
Keith, for any source you use, you should leave a full citation in the References section. See [[WP:CITE]]. That way, if your source is on the Web and disappears, others may still be able to find it (if, say, it was a published article that was posted online). However, if you're using material that exists only on the Web, and the website disappears completely, then you've lost your source, and the material in the article goes back to being unsourced. For that reason, and also to do with the likely quality of the source, I'd say it's best to avoid relying on material that exists only on one or two websites.
Sarah
Ever heard of the Wayback Machine? (internetarchive.org)
Cynical
Keith D. Tyler wrote:
David Alexander Russell wrote:
Yes but in written sources you have just that - a written record of what was said and who said it. That is the difference in credibility between an official press release by the airport and you phoning up some bozo in the airport's customer services department
Cynical
That's not at all true of Web sites, and anyone who's been on it for any significant period of time knows this. Web sites are very dynamic and pages and even whole sites often disappear without a trace (notwithstanding Google cache and Internet Archive).
What happens if I use as a reference a website that has disappeared in the time since I added the information? It then becomes unverifiable. Presumably the info, like the website it was sourced from, must disappear?
Kdt
Keith D. Tyler wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Keith D. Tyler wrote:
- I call Boeing Field on the phone and ask them how many planes fly in and out
every day.
Thanks, but no thanks. This has all kinds of verifiability problem - who answers the phone? Are they working from records, or BSing you
from memory so as to get you to hang up and stop bothering them?
What if I call them later, and get a different answer; do I delete your number as out of date, or start accumulating a long list of answers from random phone calls?
Excellent question. And the answer is the same as what you would do if different published sources have different numbers, or what you would do if a verifiable web site was updated with new numbers since the time it's information was added to WP.
Attributable personal contact to an identifiable authority does not introduce new problems that don't already present themselves in the approved methods of research. The notion that a personal contact results in irreconcilability or potential for inaccuracy is a disingenuous straw man. If these were issues isolated to personal contact, I could see the problem. But they simply and plainly are not; they occur in print and online sourcing as well.
Kdt
There are millions of good print resources in the world; I'd be happy if people actually finished the job of representing their content in WP, rather than fool around with marginal cases.
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Keith D. Tyler wrote:
[snip] What happens if I use as a reference a website that has disappeared in the time since I added the information? It then becomes unverifiable. Presumably the info, like the website it was sourced from, must disappear?
If you have properly recorded the time at which you accessed the website (are you using {{cite web}} ?) it is quite simple to construct an automatic link via the Wayback Machine.
If memory serves, {{dlw}} and {{dlw-inline}} are related to this...yes, they are. If it proves sufficiently common, it should be possible to adapt the various {cite ...} templates which all "url" parameters to accommodate an option to provide a historical link if necessary.
Actually, come to think of it, given that we encourage people to record the time when they viewed a given URL, it might not be a bad idea to channel *most* of them through the Wayback Machine so as to link to the state of said URL when it was used as a reference...
HTH HAND
Yes, the criteria is whether the information is published in a reliable source, not its accuracy. So no matter how accurate you are it remains original research.
Fred
On Mar 24, 2006, at 6:09 AM, Steve Block wrote:
If reliable sources can't be cited, does that make the information original research? I mean, I can document periods of my life citing my website and other online sources, but those aren't reliable, are they? Therefore I'm creating original research, aren't I?
Steve Block
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 24/03/06
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/24/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
An interesting point that came up in conversation with presroi on IRC. Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974Anyone interested in writing up our year articles as decent history articles, as well as the lists of stuff?
We already have much of that content, in the various articles about years by topic, for example [[1974 in Australia]] and [[1974 in music]]. I do like the yearbook type format though, perhaps the list of events can go to something like [[List of events in 1974]], and the [[1974]] page can be a summary-type thing?
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
David Gerard-2 wrote:
An interesting point that came up in conversation with presroi on IRC. Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974Anyone interested in writing up our year articles as decent history articles, as well as the lists of stuff?
You will note that they have removed the lists of births and deaths to separate articles.
What are the odds that if anybody tried this on :en: the resulting articles would be on AFD in a heartbeat as "listcruft"?
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 03:03:49 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
What are the odds that if anybody tried this on :en: the resulting articles would be on AFD in a heartbeat as "listcruft"?
To imbue that comment with a seriousness which was probably not meant: very low. There is substantial encyclopaedic content.
What you *would* probably find is that every year since 199x would be dominated by "foo Pokemon deck released" with a three paragraph summary, "foo game released for bar console" with nine paragraphs, "foo webforum launched" with 28 paragraphs... and somewhere buried at the bottom in about eight words the fact that the Nobel Prize for Medicine was awarded to a man who discovered a cure for cancer and the common cold, over which there would be an edit war regarding the precise semantics of the words "cure", "common", "cold" and quite likely "who" ;-) Guy (JzG)
Phil Boswell wrote:
David Gerard-2 wrote:
An interesting point that came up in conversation with presroi on IRC. Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974
Anyone interested in writing up our year articles as decent history articles, as well as the lists of stuff?
You will note that they have removed the lists of births and deaths to separate articles.
What are the odds that if anybody tried this on :en: the resulting articles would be on AFD in a heartbeat as "listcruft"?
Perhaps. On the other hand, someone _could_ just write up a guideline about it and submit it to a consensus poll. I expect it might pass quite easily, given how awkward the year articles currently are, and, once approved, would pacify even the strictest policy wonks.
There _are_ other methods for getting things done besides being bold, you know. Sometimes they can even be more effective.
Maybe [[en:user:bobblewik]] is ashamed of what our year articles look like? I hadn't thought about it before, but it might explain a subset of his pathological edits.
--freakofnurture -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Year-articles---en%3A-versus-de%3A-t1331561.html#a3583... Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.