Cool Cat recently created an article called Starfleet Uniformshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet_Uniforms, and it was nominated for deletion as cruft and OR.
The screencaps/promo photos in the article, IMO, acted as a reputable source. I mean, how else (canonically) are you going to know about the uniform switch between TOS and TNG? Using a book is not canonical, and therefore is surely not [[WP:V]].
As for fancruft, how is an article about Starfleet uniforms fancruft. In some people's opinion, any article to do with any fictional is fancruft. But is the article on Jean-Luc Picard fancruft? I think not.
Your thoughts?
Joe Anderson wrote:
Cool Cat recently created an article called Starfleet Uniformshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet_Uniforms, and it was nominated for deletion as cruft and OR.
The screencaps/promo photos in the article, IMO, acted as a reputable source. I mean, how else (canonically) are you going to know about the uniform switch between TOS and TNG? Using a book is not canonical, and therefore is surely not [[WP:V]].
There are such things as Star Trek encyclopediae, which report canon and real life (and probably not fanfic/other non-canon).
While the TV shows are canonical (as are the movies (except where continuity fails, cf. /Enterprise/)), using a screencap is close to original research and on dangerous ground wrt. using "fair use" as an excuse for copyright infringement.
As for fancruft, how is an article about Starfleet uniforms fancruft. In some people's opinion, any article to do with any fictional is fancruft. But is the article on Jean-Luc Picard fancruft? I think not.
:)
On 8/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
While the TV shows are canonical (as are the movies (except where continuity fails, cf. /Enterprise/)), using a screencap is close to original research and on dangerous ground wrt. using "fair use" as an excuse for copyright infringement.
I would put it like this: relying exclusively on primary sources doesn't give you much room to move without straying into original research. A good secondary source (they must exist for this topic) would give this article a solid base to stand on.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
While the TV shows are canonical (as are the movies (except where continuity fails, cf. /Enterprise/)), using a screencap is close to original research and on dangerous ground wrt. using "fair use" as an excuse for copyright infringement.
I would put it like this: relying exclusively on primary sources doesn't give you much room to move without straying into original research. A good secondary source (they must exist for this topic) would give this article a solid base to stand on.
Steve
This feels like ground we covered on the fancruft thread a while back. That is using primary sources exclusively *IS* limiting but in this case if you are only using them as evidence for what the uniforms look like, then they should be fine. The result will be a very short article or possibly a stub, but there is no reason to delete that.
Dalf
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Joe Anderson wrote:
Cool Cat recently created an article called Starfleet Uniformshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet_Uniforms, and it was nominated for deletion as cruft and OR.
The screencaps/promo photos in the article, IMO, acted as a reputable source. I mean, how else (canonically) are you going to know about the uniform switch between TOS and TNG? Using a book is not canonical, and therefore is surely not [[WP:V]].
There are such things as Star Trek encyclopediae, which report canon and real life (and probably not fanfic/other non-canon).
While the TV shows are canonical (as are the movies (except where continuity fails, cf. /Enterprise/)), using a screencap is close to original research and on dangerous ground wrt. using "fair use" as an excuse for copyright infringement.
So using a picture from the secondary source would be somehow more free than using a screen capture?
If one draws from a Star Trek Encyclopedia, comparing what is said there with the original source is still important. How else are you going to know whether the Encyclopedia information is accurate?
I seriously question the notion that using material from the original movie or book is original research. The original research was done by the author of the book.
Ec
On 8/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Joe Anderson wrote:
Cool Cat recently created an article called Starfleet Uniformshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet_Uniforms, and it was nominated for deletion as cruft and OR.
The screencaps/promo photos in the article, IMO, acted as a reputable source. I mean, how else (canonically) are you going to know about the uniform switch between TOS and TNG? Using a book is not canonical, and therefore is surely not [[WP:V]].
There are such things as Star Trek encyclopediae, which report canon and real life (and probably not fanfic/other non-canon).
While the TV shows are canonical (as are the movies (except where continuity fails, cf. /Enterprise/)), using a screencap is close to original research and on dangerous ground wrt. using "fair use" as an excuse for copyright infringement.
So using a picture from the secondary source would be somehow more free than using a screen capture?
No, the secondary source would describe the uniform switch from TOS to TNG.
If one draws from a Star Trek Encyclopedia, comparing what is said there with the original source is still important. How else are you going to know whether the Encyclopedia information is accurate?
"Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly." WP:NOR
I seriously question the notion that using material from the original movie or book is original research.
I don't see how you possibly could question it; it's clear as day (see above). Where have the screencaps in question been published?
The original research was done by the author of the book.
That's right, and he's allowed to. Scientists, researchers, authors, newspaper reporters - they all do original research. We don't, we use the material the have published in reliable sources instead.
Jay.
jayjg wrote:
On 8/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I seriously question the notion that using material from the original movie or book is original research.
I don't see how you possibly could question it; it's clear as day (see above). Where have the screencaps in question been published?
On TV. In the case of Star Trek in particular they've also been published on DVD.
The original research was done by the author of the book.
That's right, and he's allowed to. Scientists, researchers, authors, newspaper reporters - they all do original research. We don't, we use the material the have published in reliable sources instead.
NOR explicitly allows the use of primary sources, which as far as I can tell a broadcast or DVD showing of a television episode is.
The "is a TV episode a primary source?" debate was in full swing back when I left on vacation a couple weeks ago, good to see it wasn't resolved behind my back. :)
jayjg wrote:
On 8/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Joe Anderson wrote:
Cool Cat recently created an article called Starfleet Uniformshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet_Uniforms, and it was nominated for deletion as cruft and OR.
The screencaps/promo photos in the article, IMO, acted as a reputable source. I mean, how else (canonically) are you going to know about the uniform switch between TOS and TNG? Using a book is not canonical, and therefore is surely not [[WP:V]].
There are such things as Star Trek encyclopediae, which report canon and real life (and probably not fanfic/other non-canon).
While the TV shows are canonical (as are the movies (except where continuity fails, cf. /Enterprise/)), using a screencap is close to original research and on dangerous ground wrt. using "fair use" as an excuse for copyright infringement.
So using a picture from the secondary source would be somehow more free than using a screen capture?
No, the secondary source would describe the uniform switch from TOS to TNG.
So would sample screen captures from episode of the two programs. You would be able to see the difference without explanation. This doesn't explain your gratuitous red herring about copyright infringement.
If one draws from a Star Trek Encyclopedia, comparing what is said there with the original source is still important. How else are you going to know whether the Encyclopedia information is accurate?
"Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly." WP:NOR
I see. So you believe that slavish adherence to the ravings of policy wonks is more important than accuracy. By your analysis above, if the material in a Star Trek Encyclopedia is just plain dead fucking wrong we would not be allowed to point that out because you consider it to be original research. When it gets that far it strikes me as though the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
I seriously question the notion that using material from the original movie or book is original research.
I don't see how you possibly could question it; it's clear as day (see above). Where have the screencaps in question been published?
It's clear as day that they were published when the movie was released.
The original research was done by the author of the book.
That's right, and he's allowed to. Scientists, researchers, authors, newspaper reporters - they all do original research. We don't, we use the material the have published in reliable sources instead.
Then I'm glad that you agree that since the author of the Star Trek novel or movie script did the original research our use of that material is not original research.
Ec
On 8/13/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 8/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Joe Anderson wrote:
Cool Cat recently created an article called Starfleet Uniformshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet_Uniforms, and it was nominated for deletion as cruft and OR.
The screencaps/promo photos in the article, IMO, acted as a reputable source. I mean, how else (canonically) are you going to know about the uniform switch between TOS and TNG? Using a book is not canonical, and therefore is surely not [[WP:V]].
There are such things as Star Trek encyclopediae, which report canon and real life (and probably not fanfic/other non-canon).
While the TV shows are canonical (as are the movies (except where continuity fails, cf. /Enterprise/)), using a screencap is close to original research and on dangerous ground wrt. using "fair use" as an excuse for copyright infringement.
So using a picture from the secondary source would be somehow more free than using a screen capture?
No, the secondary source would describe the uniform switch from TOS to TNG.
So would sample screen captures from episode of the two programs. You would be able to see the difference without explanation. This doesn't explain your gratuitous red herring about copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement? I don't know what you're talking about, I never mentioned copyright infringement.
If one draws from a Star Trek Encyclopedia, comparing what is said there with the original source is still important. How else are you going to know whether the Encyclopedia information is accurate?
"Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly." WP:NOR
I see. So you believe that slavish adherence to the ravings of policy wonks is more important than accuracy. By your analysis above, if the material in a Star Trek Encyclopedia is just plain dead fucking wrong we would not be allowed to point that out because you consider it to be original research. When it gets that far it strikes me as though the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Um, you might not be aware of just how many crackpots there are that insist that the facts printed in books are wrong.
I seriously question the notion that using material from the original movie or book is original research.
I don't see how you possibly could question it; it's clear as day (see above). Where have the screencaps in question been published?
It's clear as day that they were published when the movie was released.
Published in what sense?
The original research was done by the author of the book.
That's right, and he's allowed to. Scientists, researchers, authors, newspaper reporters - they all do original research. We don't, we use the material the have published in reliable sources instead.
Then I'm glad that you agree that since the author of the Star Trek novel or movie script did the original research our use of that material is not original research.
Huh? Writing a work of fiction is not "original research". Writing *about* a work of fiction *is* original research. When the authors of the Star Trek encyclopedia write about the series, they are engaging in original research.
Ray, how could putting words in my mouth that you clearly know I don't mean help further a discussion?
Jay.
jayjg wrote:
On 8/13/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 8/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Joe Anderson wrote:
Cool Cat recently created an article called Starfleet Uniformshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet_Uniforms, and it was nominated for deletion as cruft and OR.
The screencaps/promo photos in the article, IMO, acted as a reputable source. I mean, how else (canonically) are you going to know about the uniform switch between TOS and TNG? Using a book is not canonical, and therefore is surely not [[WP:V]].
There are such things as Star Trek encyclopediae, which report canon and real life (and probably not fanfic/other non-canon).
While the TV shows are canonical (as are the movies (except where continuity fails, cf. /Enterprise/)), using a screencap is close to original research and on dangerous ground wrt. using "fair use" as an excuse for copyright infringement. (****)
So using a picture from the secondary source would be somehow more free than using a screen capture?
No, the secondary source would describe the uniform switch from TOS to TNG.
So would sample screen captures from episode of the two programs. You would be able to see the difference without explanation. This doesn't explain your gratuitous red herring about copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement? I don't know what you're talking about, I never mentioned copyright infringement.
See (****) above. If that was somebody else, I apologize for any implicitly wrong attribution.
If one draws from a Star Trek Encyclopedia, comparing what is said there with the original source is still important. How else are you going to know whether the Encyclopedia information is accurate?
"Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly." WP:NOR
I see. So you believe that slavish adherence to the ravings of policy wonks is more important than accuracy. By your analysis above, if the material in a Star Trek Encyclopedia is just plain dead fucking wrong we would not be allowed to point that out because you consider it to be original research. When it gets that far it strikes me as though the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Um, you might not be aware of just how many crackpots there are that insist that the facts printed in books are wrong.
Of course, and it's not enough just to say that it's wrong. Saying so requires evidence, and a specific reference to the episode or novel would be evidence. As long as the episode is available it's verifiable.
I seriously question the notion that using material from the original movie or book is original research.
I don't see how you possibly could question it; it's clear as day (see above). Where have the screencaps in question been published?
It's clear as day that they were published when the movie was released.
Published in what sense?
Made public.
The original research was done by the author of the book.
That's right, and he's allowed to. Scientists, researchers, authors, newspaper reporters - they all do original research. We don't, we use the material the have published in reliable sources instead.
Then I'm glad that you agree that since the author of the Star Trek novel or movie script did the original research our use of that material is not original research.
Huh? Writing a work of fiction is not "original research". Writing *about* a work of fiction *is* original research. When the authors of the Star Trek encyclopedia write about the series, they are engaging in original research.
Ray, how could putting words in my mouth that you clearly know I don't mean help further a discussion?
Tit for tat. Why did you say "That's right." in relation to the author of the book when I was clearly referring to the writer of the novel or episode? The actual writing of the work of fiction (or any book for that matter) is not research at all; the research preceeds the writing. Certainly the novellist had to do some original research so that the novel could make some sense. That encyclopedia is a secondary source, and not original research.
Ec
On 8/13/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 8/13/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 8/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Joe Anderson wrote:
>Cool Cat recently created an article called Starfleet >Uniformshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet_Uniforms, >and it was nominated for deletion as cruft and OR. > >The screencaps/promo photos in the article, IMO, acted as a reputable >source. I mean, how else (canonically) are you going to know about the >uniform switch between TOS and TNG? Using a book is not canonical, and >therefore is surely not [[WP:V]]. > > There are such things as Star Trek encyclopediae, which report canon and real life (and probably not fanfic/other non-canon).
While the TV shows are canonical (as are the movies (except where continuity fails, cf. /Enterprise/)), using a screencap is close to original research and on dangerous ground wrt. using "fair use" as an excuse for copyright infringement. (****)
So using a picture from the secondary source would be somehow more free than using a screen capture?
No, the secondary source would describe the uniform switch from TOS to TNG.
So would sample screen captures from episode of the two programs. You would be able to see the difference without explanation. This doesn't explain your gratuitous red herring about copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement? I don't know what you're talking about, I never mentioned copyright infringement.
See (****) above. If that was somebody else, I apologize for any implicitly wrong attribution.
Someone else.
If one draws from a Star Trek Encyclopedia, comparing what is said there with the original source is still important. How else are you going to know whether the Encyclopedia information is accurate?
"Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly." WP:NOR
I see. So you believe that slavish adherence to the ravings of policy wonks is more important than accuracy. By your analysis above, if the material in a Star Trek Encyclopedia is just plain dead fucking wrong we would not be allowed to point that out because you consider it to be original research. When it gets that far it strikes me as though the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Um, you might not be aware of just how many crackpots there are that insist that the facts printed in books are wrong.
Of course, and it's not enough just to say that it's wrong. Saying so requires evidence, and a specific reference to the episode or novel would be evidence. As long as the episode is available it's verifiable.
Sigh. Original research.
I seriously question the notion that using material from the original movie or book is original research.
I don't see how you possibly could question it; it's clear as day (see above). Where have the screencaps in question been published?
It's clear as day that they were published when the movie was released.
Published in what sense?
Made public.
Made public and being published are not synonyms.
The original research was done by the author of the book.
That's right, and he's allowed to. Scientists, researchers, authors, newspaper reporters - they all do original research. We don't, we use the material the have published in reliable sources instead.
Then I'm glad that you agree that since the author of the Star Trek novel or movie script did the original research our use of that material is not original research.
Huh? Writing a work of fiction is not "original research". Writing *about* a work of fiction *is* original research. When the authors of the Star Trek encyclopedia write about the series, they are engaging in original research.
Ray, how could putting words in my mouth that you clearly know I don't mean help further a discussion?
Tit for tat. Why did you say "That's right." in relation to the author of the book when I was clearly referring to the writer of the novel or episode? The actual writing of the work of fiction (or any book for that matter) is not research at all; the research preceeds the writing. Certainly the novellist had to do some original research so that the novel could make some sense. That encyclopedia is a secondary source, and not original research.
I have no idea what you're talking about any more. Novelists write novels. An encyclopedia is a secondary source, filled with original research.
Jay.
jayjg wrote:
I seriously question the notion that using material from the original movie or book is original research.
I don't see how you possibly could question it; it's clear as day (see above). Where have the screencaps in question been published?
It's clear as day that they were published when the movie was released.
Published in what sense?
Made public.
Made public and being published are not synonyms.
"The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 2001: "prepare and issue (a book, journal, or piece of music) for public sale. ...print in a book or journal so as to make it generally known. ... formally announce or read. ... communicate to a third party". You might find it enlightening to look at the etymology of both words.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 8/13/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 8/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Joe Anderson wrote:
> Cool Cat recently created an article called Starfleet > Uniformshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet_Uniforms, > and it was nominated for deletion as cruft and OR. > > The screencaps/promo photos in the article, IMO, acted as a reputable > source. I mean, how else (canonically) are you going to know about the > uniform switch between TOS and TNG? Using a book is not canonical, and > therefore is surely not [[WP:V]]. > > There are such things as Star Trek encyclopediae, which report canon and real life (and probably not fanfic/other non-canon).
While the TV shows are canonical (as are the movies (except where continuity fails, cf. /Enterprise/)), using a screencap is close to original research and on dangerous ground wrt. using "fair use" as an excuse for copyright infringement. (****)
So using a picture from the secondary source would be somehow more free than using a screen capture?
No, the secondary source would describe the uniform switch from TOS to TNG.
So would sample screen captures from episode of the two programs. You would be able to see the difference without explanation. This doesn't explain your gratuitous red herring about copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement? I don't know what you're talking about, I never mentioned copyright infringement.
See (****) above. If that was somebody else, I apologize for any implicitly wrong attribution.
<snip>
That was me, and it's not a red herring. Every time we claim "fair use" on an image, it is because the image is not Free; that means, we are infringing someone's copyright. "Fair use" is something which exists under US law (presumably several others, but it's US law that we rely on) which we use to justify that infringement; I was making the point that with things like screenshots, we have to be careful that our claims are in fact fair and valid.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
That was me, and it's not a red herring. Every time we claim "fair use" on an image, it is because the image is not Free; that means, we are infringing someone's copyright.
I'm no lawyer but I think this is wrong. If our use of a copyrighted item is done under circumstances that meet the requirements of valid fair use, then we are _not_ infringing on that copyright. Fair use gives us the legal ability to use that copyrighted item in that manner.
There are many situations that lie in between "Free" and "copyright infringement," it's not either/or.
On 14/08/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
That was me, and it's not a red herring. Every time we claim "fair use" on an image, it is because the image is not Free; that means, we are infringing someone's copyright.
I'm no lawyer but I think this is wrong. If our use of a copyrighted item is done under circumstances that meet the requirements of valid fair use, then we are _not_ infringing on that copyright. Fair use gives us the legal ability to use that copyrighted item in that manner. There are many situations that lie in between "Free" and "copyright infringement," it's not either/or.
Well, we're not infringing their copyright until it's ruled we are.
The problem with "fair use" is that it's not a licence, it's a legal *defence*. i.e., if someone wants to sue us for quoting their copyrighted work or using their copyrighted picture, they can do so and we may win or not.
If their case is egregiously overreaching, we would be likely to get attorneys' fees from them - and then we also have a LOT of friends on the Internet who would see an obviously egregious case of overreaching and throw a bit of cash our way and bury the plaintiff in oppobrium.
If it's *not* egregiously overreaching, the Foundation has a decision to make on whether it's worth pursuing the issue on principle, e.g. a screencap for purposes of encyclopedic discussion is likely absolutely minimal copying and just the sort of thing the "fair use" doctrine is for. Same for a book cover in an article about the book.
The tricky bit with fair use is that it's the use that is fair (or not), not the presence of the image. This is why IMO fair use image pages should list the articles they are fair use in, possibly with a detailed rationale (which we have for many via the various fair use templates).
The reason to continue with fair use is that enclosure of culture by copyright to the point where it seriously hampers people talking about the subjects is odious. This particularly applies in the case of an encyclopedia, which is an example of the sort of thing fair use is for.
(I think I have all that right ... corrections welcomed.)
- d.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
That was me, and it's not a red herring. Every time we claim "fair use" on an image, it is because the image is not Free; that means, we are infringing someone's copyright. "Fair use" is something which exists under US law (presumably several others, but it's US law that we rely on) which we use to justify that infringement; I was making the point that with things like screenshots, we have to be careful that our claims are in fact fair and valid.
If you ever bothered to read section 107 of part 17 of the U.S.C. you would see it plainly written:
the fair use of a copyrighted work, ... is not an infringement of copyright.
This is much stronger wording than simply justifying an infringement. Free use and fair use operate on separate tracks. One does not follow from the other.
Ec
G'day Ray,
jayjg wrote:
On 8/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
If one draws from a Star Trek Encyclopedia, comparing what is said there with the original source is still important. How else are you going to know whether the Encyclopedia information is accurate?
"Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly." WP:NOR
I see. So you believe that slavish adherence to the ravings of policy wonks is more important than accuracy. By your analysis above, if the material in a Star Trek Encyclopedia is just plain dead fucking wrong we would not be allowed to point that out because you consider it to be original research. When it gets that far it strikes me as though the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
I can confirm that non-canon but official publications have been known to get things wrong from time-to-time. It's been a while since I hung out on the geekier side of USENET and listened to more financially well-off (i.e. able to afford such publications and all the eps on video etc.) Trekkies whinge, but I'm sure there's plenty of examples out there (maybe Trekkies on this list who can call up a few examples of their own?)
Also, I'm not too sure how a Paramount-commissioned book becomes a "secondary source". When it describes stuff that doesn't actually appear in the episodes --- the standard non-canon starship specs, explanations for plot holes, etc. --- it's not a secondary source, as such, is it? It's a primary source. And when it describes stuff that's already appeared in the episodes, how is it more a secondary source than another episode?
Let's say Captain Picard is captured by the Borg and forced to become their Official Spokesdroid to the Federation (far-fetched, I know, but it could happen). We'll call that episode "BOBW1". In a later episode, let's call it "BOBW2", Deanna Troi mentions that the Spokesdroid "sounds kinda stressed; probably that's Picard's mind suffering under the transformation the Borg subjected him to in BOBW1". A year later, the "/Star Trek: The Next Generation/ Yearbook" is released, and it describes, going into a LOT of non-canon detail, exactly what happened to Picard.
Let's play "spot the source-related buzzword". Now, BOBW1 is a primary source, right? So basing an article on sitting down in front of the telly with some popcorns and a few mates who happen to love MST3k counts as "original research". However, reading through the Yearbook is *not* original research, since that's a "secondary source". Now, at what point does the Yearbook stop being a primary and become a secondary source? Is it the point where it starts regurgitating information already available by simply watching the episodes? If so, why is BOBW2 not a secondary source? What does this mean for programmes like /Babylon 5/, which (mostly) eschew standalone episodes?
I seriously question the notion that using material from the original movie or book is original research.
I don't see how you possibly could question it; it's clear as day (see above). Where have the screencaps in question been published?
It's clear as day that they were published when the movie was released.
Not clear as day *as such*. A common misconception, and one that causes many copyright issues, is that screencaps are completely separate from the films from which they were taken. How often do we see film screencaps uploaded to Wikipedia with the uploader feeling justified in saying "self-made work, I release it under CC-BY-SA" because he went to all the trouble of pressing PrtScr on his keyboard?
In such an environment, I wouldn't be getting too snarky at someone who got the idea that screencaps had to be separately published before we could refer to them. We're so oriented towards text and still pictures, it's hard to remember that screen caps are just us taking part of an existing, published and copyrighted film (much like copying and pasting text from a book, or cropping a photograph). It's a prefectly natural mistake.
The original research was done by the author of the book.
That's right, and he's allowed to. Scientists, researchers, authors, newspaper reporters - they all do original research. We don't, we use the material the have published in reliable sources instead.
Then I'm glad that you agree that since the author of the Star Trek novel or movie script did the original research our use of that material is not original research.
Err, not sure I'd go that far. My approach, which will surely have certain list members (if anyone bothers to scroll down this far) groaning and clutching at their foreheads, is: fuck policy. Or, to put it another way, "adopt a purposive and commonsense-oriented approach designed to increase flexibility and allow in-depth tailoring of resources towards specific project needs" (but I prefer "fuck policy", because it's shorter).
The original research policy can be summarised as: "don't make shit up". Since a small but significant proportion of the editors who fall afoul of this policy don't tend to think of their activities as "making shit up"[0], we had to craft a new stick with a nail in it (sorry, "policy") and write "WP:NOR" on the side[1]. NOR exists to deal with physics crackpots and the like; however, in our enthusiasm to follow policy, however poorly-written, to the letter, we trip over ourselves to explain that articles on TV programmes must be deleted, Jimbo Wales can't advertise his own birthday, diagrams must be copied from textbooks, and high-quality GFDL pictures from amateur photographer Wikipedians cannot be accepted.
I haven't read the /Star Trek/ uniforms article, but I can see several ways such an article could be written in a way that *isn't* in contravention of the spirit of the principle whilst still falling afoul of the letter of the policy. And in such cases, frankly: fuck policy.
[0] Who can forget the LaRouchite's failed (but entertaining, in a teeth-grinding sort of way) attempts to argue that Chip Berlet's contributions were "original research" because he's also an investigative journalist (or something of that kidney)?
[1] A similar procedure with "don't be a dick" led to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.
Someone explain to me how a screencap is ANY different than a quote from a book.
mboverload
mboverload wrote:
Someone explain to me how a screencap is ANY different than a quote from a book.
Quotes are factual (somebody said them), and facts cannot be copyrighted.
A screenshot is one of several thousand (~= 24 * 60 * 45) copyrighted images, a story, the characters in the story, and an audio track which make up an episode of a TV show.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
mboverload wrote:
Someone explain to me how a screencap is ANY different than a quote from a book.
Quotes are factual (somebody said them), and facts cannot be copyrighted.
Quotes can indeed be copyrighted. If we quote a paragraph from a book we need to consider issues like fair use, we can't just take the text and integrate it into an article willy-nilly as if it were under the GFDL.
A screenshot is one of several thousand (~= 24 * 60 * 45) copyrighted images, a story, the characters in the story, and an audio track which make up an episode of a TV show.
Books can have thousands of paragraphs too, all of them copyrighted and forming a story (assuming it's one of those newfangled story-books). I fail to see the distinction, or even why the number of frames a screencap is taken from is relevant. Would a screencap from a 30-second commercial with no story be different?
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Books can have thousands of paragraphs too, all of them copyrighted and
forming a story (assuming it's one of those newfangled story-books). I fail to see the distinction, or even why the number of frames a screencap is taken from is relevant. Would a screencap from a 30-second commercial with no story be different?
Filmed commercials (the most shameful of Canadian inventions) would face other hurdles besides copyright: -Is it notable? -Is it encyclopedic? -Is it spam? -Is it NPOV?
Over the years some commercials have become creative classics in their own right.
Ec
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
mboverload wrote:
Someone explain to me how a screencap is ANY different than a quote from a book.
Quotes are factual (somebody said them), and facts cannot be copyrighted.
Wow! Some people really work hard to prove they haven't got a clue. Quotes may be factual, but they are not facts. What is copyrighted is the way something is expressed rather that its informational content. Sometimes they become merged when the two are indistinguishable. The merger principle can render something uncopyrightable; this was the basis for Lexmark's loss over the copyrightability of the software in its ink cartridges. When the work in question is fictional you are less likely to be dealing with facts, and unless the work is in the public domain the use of any quotation from it is an example of fair use. Picking up the quote from a work about the work doesn't change that.
A screenshot is one of several thousand (~= 24 * 60 * 45) copyrighted images, a story, the characters in the story, and an audio track which make up an episode of a TV show.
My understanding was that "screenshot" and "screencap" referred to stills from a moving picture. You make it sound like each pixel is copyrightable. :-)
Ec
On 8/13/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
mboverload wrote:
Someone explain to me how a screencap is ANY different than a quote from a book.
Quotes are factual (somebody said them), and facts cannot be copyrighted.
Wow! Some people really work hard to prove they haven't got a clue.
Ray, do you imagine that this kind of rudeness is helpful?
Jay.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
mboverload wrote:
Someone explain to me how a screencap is ANY different than a quote from a book.
Quotes are factual (somebody said them), and facts cannot be copyrighted.
Wow! Some people really work hard to prove they haven't got a clue. Quotes may be factual, but they are not facts. What is copyrighted is the way something is expressed rather that its informational content. Sometimes they become merged when the two are indistinguishable. The merger principle can render something uncopyrightable; this was the basis for Lexmark's loss over the copyrightability of the software in its ink cartridges. When the work in question is fictional you are less likely to be dealing with facts, and unless the work is in the public domain the use of any quotation from it is an example of fair use. Picking up the quote from a work about the work doesn't change that.
You misunderstand me. First, you abuse me when I'm trying to explain something to someone without flaming them for not understanding; second, what is a quote if it's not a factual saying? Even made-up quotes are factual in that someone made them up; even quotes from a book are factual in that someone wrote the book they come from.
Oh, and if quotes are copyrightable (and we can only use them under "fair use"), please explain to me how Wikiquote can exist?
A screenshot is one of several thousand (~= 24 * 60 * 45) copyrighted images, a story, the characters in the story, and an audio track which make up an episode of a TV show.
My understanding was that "screenshot" and "screencap" referred to stills from a moving picture. You make it sound like each pixel is copyrightable. :-)
No. A collection of pixels which represent something, where creative input is involved, are copyrightable.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
mboverload wrote:
Someone explain to me how a screencap is ANY different than a quote from a book.
Quotes are factual (somebody said them), and facts cannot be copyrighted.
Wow! Some people really work hard to prove they haven't got a clue. Quotes may be factual, but they are not facts. What is copyrighted is the way something is expressed rather that its informational content. Sometimes they become merged when the two are indistinguishable. The merger principle can render something uncopyrightable; this was the basis for Lexmark's loss over the copyrightability of the software in its ink cartridges. When the work in question is fictional you are less likely to be dealing with facts, and unless the work is in the public domain the use of any quotation from it is an example of fair use. Picking up the quote from a work about the work doesn't change that.
You misunderstand me. First, you abuse me when I'm trying to explain something to someone without flaming them for not understanding; second, what is a quote if it's not a factual saying? Even made-up quotes are factual in that someone made them up; even quotes from a book are factual in that someone wrote the book they come from.
What I was saying was that the copyright issue is irrelevant to the original research issue. A quote taken directly from a novel or indirectly from an encyclopedia is still the same quote. Its copyright status, whether fair use or not, remains the same. It's no different for a picture. While the encyclopedia may very well present that it is a fact that the novel said what it said, this kind of meta-factual process does not change the nature of what is quoted. It is not justification for characterizing the clear application of fair use as something else.
Oh, and if quotes are copyrightable (and we can only use them under "fair use"), please explain to me how Wikiquote can exist?
I did not say that quotes were copyrightable; you cannot claim copyright on something that is already copyright by someone else, or is in the public domain. I said, "...unless the work is in the public domain the use of any quotation from it is an example of fair use" Wikiquote can exist because of fair use.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
<snip>
Oh, and if quotes are copyrightable (and we can only use them under "fair use"), please explain to me how Wikiquote can exist?
I did not say that quotes were copyrightable; you cannot claim copyright on something that is already copyright by someone else, or is in the public domain. I said, "...unless the work is in the public domain the use of any quotation from it is an example of fair use" Wikiquote can exist because of fair use.
IANAL, which is why I'm crossposting to foundation-l so that someone can clarify this for us; does Wikiquote really only exist because of the "fair use" provision in US law?
On 8/13/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
Someone explain to me how a screencap is ANY different than a quote from a book.
The accuracy of a quote in a book can easily be verified by going to a library and looking it up; often the quotes can even be found online. How does one verify the accuracy of a screencap?
Jay.
On 8/13/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The accuracy of a quote in a book can easily be verified by going to a library and looking it up; often the quotes can even be found online. How does one verify the accuracy of a screencap?
Presumably by obtaining the movie in VHS or DVD form. Many libraries have collections of movies for loan, and there are commercial providers as well (cf Blockbuster, etc)
Once there, one can look for the scene.
A corollary of this is that screencaps of movies or TV programs not available in purchaseable/rentable/loanable form should not be used as source material, since they are effectively unverifiable.
-Matt
On 8/13/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The accuracy of a quote in a book can easily be verified by going to a library and looking it up; often the quotes can even be found online. How does one verify the accuracy of a screencap?
Presumably by obtaining the movie in VHS or DVD form. Many libraries have collections of movies for loan, and there are commercial providers as well (cf Blockbuster, etc)
Once there, one can look for the scene.
24 frames per second, times 2 hours? That works out to over 170,000 frames. Is the fact-checker supposed to skip through a frame at a time? And even then how can one assure that the screencap hasn't been altered in some subtle way? And then one must actually describe what one sees in the screencap, which, of course, is open to many different interpretations (i.e. original research).
With a quotation, it's quite simple - get the book, open up to the page number listed, and read a couple of hundred words. Do the words in the article match what's in the book? Verified.
A corollary of this is that screencaps of movies or TV programs not available in purchaseable/rentable/loanable form should not be used as source material, since they are effectively unverifiable.
In my view *all* screencaps are effectively unverifiable.
Jay.
On 8/13/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The accuracy of a quote in a book can easily be verified by going to a library and looking it up; often the quotes can even be found online. How does one verify the accuracy of a screencap?
Presumably by obtaining the movie in VHS or DVD form. Many libraries have collections of movies for loan, and there are commercial providers as well (cf Blockbuster, etc)
Once there, one can look for the scene.
24 frames per second, times 2 hours? That works out to over 170,000 frames. Is the fact-checker supposed to skip through a frame at a time? And even then how can one assure that the screencap hasn't been altered in some subtle way? And then one must actually describe what one sees in the screencap, which, of course, is open to many different interpretations (i.e. original research).
With a quotation, it's quite simple - get the book, open up to the page number listed, and read a couple of hundred words. Do the words in the article match what's in the book? Verified.
...
Jay.
Not really. Which book, what edition? Consider the Bible - there are dozens and dozens of possible original source manuscripts, and then even more possible ways to edit their errors and ambiguities into a generally acceptable text, and then one must decide on punctuation (most of the languages concerned having none), and then one must consider what books will be ruled canon, and then the actual translation could be one of hundreds. How does one verify a Bible quotation? And the Tripitaka is even worse in this regard. (The Koran isn't such a textual problem, but that's because all the variant versions were burned early on and the designated edition religiously maintained until the relatively short time to the invention of the printing press, IMO).
Or the Origin of Species - which of the six editions by Darwin (varying substantially) would one be quoting from? Would a section from the 1st overrule one from the 6th? Or would one split the difference and go with #3?
Matter of fact, it's probably easier to 'verify' an image since most films and such are released in one way, unlike texts which are endlessly malleable. (No, Star Wars is not a good counterexample here, and arguments that citing frame number FOO is a hopelessly brittle solution apply with equal force to books where pages and layout can be altered willy-nilly between editions).
~maru
On 8/13/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The accuracy of a quote in a book can easily be verified by going to a library and looking it up; often the quotes can even be found online. How does one verify the accuracy of a screencap?
Presumably by obtaining the movie in VHS or DVD form. Many libraries have collections of movies for loan, and there are commercial providers as well (cf Blockbuster, etc)
Once there, one can look for the scene.
24 frames per second, times 2 hours? That works out to over 170,000 frames. Is the fact-checker supposed to skip through a frame at a time? And even then how can one assure that the screencap hasn't been altered in some subtle way? And then one must actually describe what one sees in the screencap, which, of course, is open to many different interpretations (i.e. original research).
With a quotation, it's quite simple - get the book, open up to the page number listed, and read a couple of hundred words. Do the words in the article match what's in the book? Verified.
...
Jay.
Not really. Which book, what edition?
Proper footnotes give the exact edition, and date.
Consider the Bible - there are dozens and dozens of possible original source manuscripts, and then even more possible ways to edit their errors and ambiguities into a generally acceptable text, and then one must decide on punctuation (most of the languages concerned having none), and then one must consider what books will be ruled canon, and then the actual translation could be one of hundreds. How does one verify a Bible quotation? And the Tripitaka is even worse in this regard. (The Koran isn't such a textual problem, but that's because all the variant versions were burned early on and the designated edition religiously maintained until the relatively short time to the invention of the printing press, IMO).
The Bible is usually considered a primary source, and many differing versions of quotations are all acceptable. If one wants to build some sort of claim or theory based on those quotes, that would be, of course, original research, and one would have to use some secondary or tertiary source discussing that theory instead.
Or the Origin of Species - which of the six editions by Darwin (varying substantially) would one be quoting from? Would a section from the 1st overrule one from the 6th? Or would one split the difference and go with #3?
Why would one have to, unless one was trying to build a novel theory? And if one was doing so, then that would be original research. Assuming one is not trying to build a novel theory, any quotation from any version would do in general, so long as it is properly attributed.
Matter of fact, it's probably easier to 'verify' an image since most films and such are released in one way, unlike texts which are endlessly malleable.
In fact, the exact opposite. What "tool" actually does the verification - does one compare pixels between the original and the uploaded version?
Jay.
On 8/14/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The Bible is usually considered a primary source, and many differing versions of quotations are all acceptable.
That ah could be problematical. The obvious example being the changes that we know have been made from older versions and in various tranlations (there are direct factual conflicts between NIV and KJV).
In fact, the exact opposite. What "tool" actually does the verification - does one compare pixels between the original and the uploaded version?
Jay.
It would certianly be one option.
geni wrote:
On 8/14/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The Bible is usually considered a primary source, and many differing versions of quotations are all acceptable.
That ah could be problematical. The obvious example being the changes that we know have been made from older versions and in various tranlations (there are direct factual conflicts between NIV and KJV).
For an example of a project that is still in its early stages see http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible/Obadiah/1/19
Ec
jayjg wrote:
24 frames per second, times 2 hours? That works out to over 170,000 frames. Is the fact-checker supposed to skip through a frame at a time?
Back when I first created the {{cite episode}} template I included a field for indicating how many minutes into the TV episode the moment being cited was. Skipping to the right minute on a DVD and then watching the show for one minute to spot the moment in question doesn't seem like an onerous task to me.
The template has since been rejiggered to match a formal citation style that doesn't include the minutes field. I think I was the only one who noticed the omission and the only one who had ever used the minutes field so it's probably not a big issue for the vast majority of people, but if you like you can re-add it and I'll help out.
And even then how can one assure that the screencap hasn't been altered in some subtle way?
You look at the screencap, and then you look at the freeze-framed original. If there are differences between the two, you notice them using pattern-recognition and -comparison wetware installed in your brain.
It's similar to how one would check to see if a quotation was altered in some subtle way. Read the quote, then read the source.
And then one must actually describe what one sees in the screencap, which, of course, is open to many different interpretations (i.e. original research).
Not if it's simply a factual description, for example noting down the name written on the side of a starship. An actual example of this sort of thing that happened in Wikipedia can be found at the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_materials_in_the_Stargate_universe#Na... where there was some discussion about how the fictional metal's name was spelled and a screencap was found showing a computer screen with the word clearly displayed on it. There's no room for subjective interpretation in this case.
Not saying that _all_ statements that can be made about a screencap have no room for interpretation, just that the converse is not universally true.
A corollary of this is that screencaps of movies or TV programs not available in purchaseable/rentable/loanable form should not be used as source material, since they are effectively unverifiable.
In my view *all* screencaps are effectively unverifiable.
I've got the DVD box set of the second season of Stargate sitting on the shelf right next to me. I can verify that Naqahdah spelling with almost trivial ease at any time.
On 14/08/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
A corollary of this is that screencaps of movies or TV programs not available in purchaseable/rentable/loanable form should not be used as source material, since they are effectively unverifiable.
No, that's not what 'verifiable' means. It's like deleting a book reference from an article because it's out of print and your own library doesn't happen to have it.
- d.
On 8/13/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's not what 'verifiable' means. It's like deleting a book reference from an article because it's out of print and your own library doesn't happen to have it.
I see your point, but are movies not available to the public in that way available at all?
As long as the reference CAN be verified, I guess, it's good enough.
On the other hand, I have a problem with references theoretically checkable yet in practice not. I guess this only comes up if a reference is put into serious question and nobody can verify it.
-Matt
Im not exactly the most citatious Wikipedian, but nor do I have any tendency to make claims which arent easily verifiable. Over the years though Ive encountered a number of Wikipedians (I wont name names) who abuse or violate a clean interpretation of CIVIL by referring to CITE or V as a basis for what is essentially ownership of an article; in the form of a revert, rather than a constructive edit, correction, or (gasp!) a collaborative and helpful attempt to find a source.
Im not sure on the stats, but it is my impression that this demand for verifiability is 1) deletionistic 2) one sided, and not applied to one's own person and 3) comes with some attached notion of "reliable sources" by which material from any deemed "unreliable" sources can be deleted.
Thats the topic. Discuss.
Wikilove, -Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Stevertigo wrote:
Im not exactly the most citatious Wikipedian, but nor do I have any tendency to make claims which arent easily verifiable. Over the years though Ive encountered a number of Wikipedians (I wont name names) who abuse or violate a clean interpretation of CIVIL by referring to CITE or V as a basis for what is essentially ownership of an article...
It's a thorny question. On the one hand our verifiability policy is super important and keeps getting more so; it's one of our few functioning bulwarks against the ever-rising tides of cruft and nonsense. But on the other hand, the "enforcement" of the policy has been getting so zealous lately that I don't have too much trouble imagining editor A saying "the sky is blue" and editor B demanding a verifiable citation lest the assertion be deleted as original research.
It "ought" to be the case that "obvious" facts, which "everybody knows", can be inserted without explicit citation. To exhaustively, regimentedly cite every well-known fact in every article would be ugly, unwieldy, and overbearing. But it's equally obvious that, the bigger and more popular Wikipedia gets, the harder it is to rely on "obvious" or "ought to" rules which depend on people being reasonable.
On Aug 14, 2006, at 11:04 AM, stevertigo wrote:
Im not exactly the most citatious Wikipedian, but nor do I have any tendency to make claims which arent easily verifiable. Over the years though Ive encountered a number of Wikipedians (I wont name names) who abuse or violate a clean interpretation of CIVIL by referring to CITE or V as a basis for what is essentially ownership of an article; in the form of a revert, rather than a constructive edit, correction, or (gasp!) a collaborative and helpful attempt to find a source.
Im not sure on the stats, but it is my impression that this demand for verifiability is 1) deletionistic 2) one sided, and not applied to one's own person and 3) comes with some attached notion of "reliable sources" by which material from any deemed "unreliable" sources can be deleted.
Thats the topic. Discuss.
That is certainly the subtext of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ His excellency. Nothing met the standards of the POV editors.
Fred
On 8/14/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Im not sure on the stats, but it is my impression that this demand for verifiability is 1) deletionistic 2) one sided, and not applied to one's own person and 3) comes with some attached notion of "reliable sources" by which material from any deemed "unreliable" sources can be deleted.
I do agree by and large that WP:V and WP:CITE can be used as clubs to beat one's opponents with. That's the problem with rules and policies.
I'd also add that it's only human nature, and no evidence of malice, that someone will consider what to them is 'obviously true' (i.e. their preferred version of things) as needing less proof and citation, but will require extraordinary levels of proof, citation and reliability for things they believe 'obviously false' (i.e. someone else's version of things).
I also find the 'Reliable Sources' concept, while having some merit, to be a concept vigorously over-pushed because of its usefulness in winning the wars on some controversial areas of Wikipedia. It's the hard and fast rules of 'THIS type of source is automatically reliable, while THIS type of source is automatically unreliable' that I have issues with.
E.g. absolute and utter hogwash is regularly published in newspapers. Even, though less frequently perhaps, in world-renowned newspapers. Yet, by some versions of Reliable Sources, newspapers are automatically in the reliable category.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
E.g. absolute and utter hogwash is regularly published in newspapers. Even, though less frequently perhaps, in world-renowned newspapers. Yet, by some versions of Reliable Sources, newspapers are automatically in the reliable category.
In many cases, the issue is further complicated by the question of exactly _how_ a source is used.
Consider a claim: "X is Y"
1. "X is Y"<1> --- that is, we assert the claim, using the authority of the cite as a reason, with the cite being to, for example, the New York Times. Usually this is fine if the claim is not really controversial.
2. "According to the New York Times, X is Y" --- we do not assert the claim, but rather assert something which is much less controversial, i.e. that the NYT said so, leaving the reader to judge it. This is much better when the claim is controversial.
3. "X is Y"<2> --- we assert the claim, only this time, the source is the Weekly World News (a tabloid of perhaps questionable authority). Very bad.
4. "According to the Weekly World News, X is Y" -- less bad, but probably still awful in most contexts
And the NYT and Weekly World News are both more or less easy cases. The difficult cases are partisan publications writing "factually" about political events, and things of that nature.
--Jimbo
On 8/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
- "X is Y"<2> --- we assert the claim, only this time, the source is
the Weekly World News (a tabloid of perhaps questionable authority). Very bad.
- "According to the Weekly World News, X is Y" -- less bad, but
probably still awful in most contexts
How about,
5. "According to the Weekly World News, a pro-X newspaper<1>, X is Y<2>"
Steve
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
In many cases, the issue is further complicated by the question of exactly _how_ a source is used. ... And the NYT and Weekly World News are both more or less easy cases. The difficult cases are partisan publications writing "factually" about political events, and things of that nature.
Right. There are plenty of out unreliable "reliable sources" out there (The Pentagon, etc.). Even after tracing back --from blog to local TV page to major news media to an anonymous source somewhere high up in the Eskimo government --even deriving an "original source" is often just linking to some political page with somebody's claims and interpretations on it.
As I said before sources are often just claims and interpretations, and virtually none of it is "facts." So why should Wikipedia expect to be a higher standard? And of we want to introduce some value judgements about who's interpretations are more correct, we need to understand that such is often too close to POV to deal with without some broader editorial policy (and heirarchy).
The case in point which brought me to post the thread had nothing to do with particular claims though, and had everything to do with OWN (incivil abuse of reverts) with regard to how certain material is presented: as somebody's clinical interpretation, or or as an actual human-readable explanation of a human event or concept. Calls to CITE are too often just smokescreen for a weak or incivil or POV argument, and if you do give a source (some famous intellectual, for example), they say "get a real source" (a 'The Pentagon' spokeswoman for example.) I pay no attention to such calls for "CITE."
The way I interpret that policy is simply as a "give us something, anything" (to click on) policy --it does'nt establish *veracity* (just as reading the lede to [[Truth]] doesnt inspire one to read any more of the article) but it does give people something to click on and feel good about the truthiness of the spun interpretation of facts they are reading. A claims X, B claims Y, C claims Z, [some links at the bottom] is about as good as it gets for any news source at any particular snapshot of time. The "higher standard" is NPOV, not veracity.
-SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
stevertigo wrote:
As I said before sources are often just claims and interpretations, and virtually none of it is "facts." So why should Wikipedia expect to be a higher standard? And of we want to introduce some value judgements about who's interpretations are more correct, we need to understand that such is often too close to POV to deal with without some broader editorial policy (and heirarchy).
In a higher standard one honours bullshit for what it is no matter who says it. That's better than deleting it and pretending it was never said.
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In a higher standard one honours bullshit for what it is no matter who says it. That's better than deleting it and pretending it was never said.
Youre such an Inclusionazi Ray,
;)
-SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Verifiability is a basic pillar of Wikipedia, so we should clearly cite less than well known statements. There's enough stuff out there that's often cited as fact when they're really as wrong as you can get. Only the most easily verifiable stuff can go unsourced.
I think it's only deletionist when you delete such claims that could be true instead of giving people the chance to verify it. Only when you can falsify it, it can be removed.
It's a fine line, but yes one should remain civil and friendly, but that's no reason to go easy on people that fail to adhere to policy. Sometimes a little harsh action can go a long way in teaching.
Mgm
On 8/14/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Im not exactly the most citatious Wikipedian, but nor do I have any tendency to make claims which arent easily verifiable. Over the years though Ive encountered a number of Wikipedians (I wont name names) who abuse or violate a clean interpretation of CIVIL by referring to CITE or V as a basis for what is essentially ownership of an article; in the form of a revert, rather than a constructive edit, correction, or (gasp!) a collaborative and helpful attempt to find a source.
Im not sure on the stats, but it is my impression that this demand for verifiability is 1) deletionistic 2) one sided, and not applied to one's own person and 3) comes with some attached notion of "reliable sources" by which material from any deemed "unreliable" sources can be deleted.
Thats the topic. Discuss.
Wikilove, -Stevertigo
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
--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes a little harsh action can go a long way in teaching.
I feel the same way, but I think that reverts arent so much as "harsh action" as they are "incivil inaction." Thats a big difference IMHO.
--- Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
To exhaustively, regimentedly cite every well-known fact in every article would be ugly, unwieldy, and overbearing. But it's equally obvious that, the bigger and more popular Wikipedia gets, the harder it is to rely on "obvious" or "ought to" rules which depend on people being reasonable.
So are you saying AGF (a subpolicy of CIVIL, (predecessor too, actually)) is out the window too?
--- Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I do agree by and large that WP:V and WP:CITE can be used as clubs to beat one's opponents with. That's the problem with rules and policies.
Do you agree then that 'beating one's opponents with a club' violates WP:CIVIL?
-SV : Wikipedia:Policy difecta : "If its not NPOV or CIVIL, is crap."
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Somebody please tell SlimJay ( WP:RFC/Slim ) to knock it off with the wikistalking.
Thanks.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 14/08/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Somebody please tell SlimJay ( WP:RFC/Slim ) to knock it off with the wikistalking.
Er, what on earth? An RFC existing in existential space with no actual signers or detailed conflict? On two editors who agree on lots and don't agree on lots? Is this an attempt to outdo [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3]] for sheer artistic wonder?
- d.
They appear to agree on a MO of harrassing me.
You can follow the contrib links from there I'm sure.
-Stevertigo
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/08/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Somebody please tell SlimJay ( WP:RFC/Slim ) to knock it off with the wikistalking.
Er, what on earth? An RFC existing in existential space with no actual signers or detailed conflict? On two editors who agree on lots and don't agree on lots? Is this an attempt to outdo [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3]] for sheer artistic wonder?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 15/08/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
To exhaustively, regimentedly cite every well-known fact in every article would be ugly, unwieldy, and overbearing. But it's equally obvious that, the bigger and more popular Wikipedia gets, the harder it is to rely on "obvious" or "ought to" rules which depend on people being reasonable.
So are you saying AGF (a subpolicy of CIVIL, (predecessor too, actually)) is out the window too?
Assuming good faith does not go so far as to say that we assume perfection of edits. As long as the person is civil and not abusive of the editor who put in the unverified statement it should fit within all the policies.
Peter Ansell
-- Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming good faith does not go so far as to say that we assume perfection of edits. As long as the person is civil and not abusive of the editor who put in the unverified statement it should fit within all the policies.
And so... do you agree that a modus operandi of blanket tag-team reverts while making obtuse references to various policies is... incivil?
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 15/08/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
-- Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming good faith does not go so far as to say that we assume perfection of edits. As long as the person is civil and not abusive of the editor who put in the unverified statement it should fit within all the policies.
And so... do you agree that a modus operandi of blanket tag-team reverts while making obtuse references to various policies is... incivil?
-Stevertigo
If what you are refering to is bullying of users than I definitely do not agree to it happening.
However, this situation has to be contrasted against the fact that Wikipedia should only contain what someone can verify using outside sources. Making Wikipedia into anything else is not what it was designed to be, and from the viewpoint of the reverters they are simply keeping Wikipedia in a verifiable (or at least noting where verification is needed) state.
Using obtuse references to policies is not what I would say referring to the Verifiability policy is. I would say that a direct reference to a core policy, which when stated objectively does not go against the civility policy.
Peter Ansell
Stevertigo wrote:
--- Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
To exhaustively, regimentedly cite every well-known fact in every article would be ugly, unwieldy, and overbearing. But it's equally obvious that, the bigger and more popular Wikipedia gets, the harder it is to rely on "obvious" or "ought to" rules which depend on people being reasonable.
So are you saying AGF (a subpolicy of CIVIL, (predecessor too, actually)) is out the window too?
Not out the window, no, though perhaps standing uncomfortably close to it. (I said "the harder it is to", not "it's now impossible to".)
I'd love it if we could hang onto WP:AGF, WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, and the rest forever. But we'll be different from every large society the world has ever known if we can manage that.
On 14/08/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Im not sure on the stats, but it is my impression that this demand for verifiability is 1) deletionistic 2) one sided, and not applied to one's own person and 3) comes with some attached notion of "reliable sources" by which material from any deemed "unreliable" sources can be deleted. Thats the topic. Discuss.
e.g. the War on Blogs, wherein some editors have got it into their heads that ALL BLOGS ARE EVIL AND MUST NEVER BE USED IN REFERENCES rather than e.g. regarding them as, say, lesser sources than peer-reviewed academic papers and assuming the reader can read. The response to crap sources is to say "those are crap sources, cut it out" rather than countering foolishness with foolishness.
On non-contentious topics, the right way to do it would be to shift it to the talk page for discussion and an attempt at sourcing, e.g. the stuff on the early [[Casio Exilim]]s being crap in low light is observed by a pile of Exilim owners (e.g. me) but I can't find a good source - so out it goes as original research, but it's on the talk page should I or someone find something verifiable showing this to be an issue.
On contentious topics, there is good reason to be hard-arsed about sources. But that doesn't mean you go overboard and legalistic because someone who hates blogs edit-warred that wording into WP:V.
- d.
-- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
e.g. the War on Blogs, wherein some editors have got it into their heads that ALL BLOGS ARE EVIL AND MUST NEVER BE USED IN REFERENCES rather than e.g. regarding them as, say, lesser sources than peer-reviewed academic papers and assuming the reader can read. The response to crap sources is to say "those are crap sources, cut it out" rather than countering foolishness with foolishness.
On non-contentious topics, the right way to do it would be to shift it to the talk page for discussion and an attempt at sourcing, e.g. the stuff on the early [[Casio Exilim]]s being crap in low light is observed by a pile of Exilim owners (e.g. me) but I can't find a good source - so out it goes as original research, but it's on the talk page should I or someone find something verifiable showing this to be an issue.
On contentious topics, there is good reason to be hard-arsed about sources. But that doesn't mean you go overboard and legalistic because someone who hates blogs edit-warred that wording into WP:V.
David, one evil does not justify another.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 14/08/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
David, one evil does not justify another.
No indeed it doesn't, and you should always warm the pot when making tea.#
(i.e. I have no idea how your comment follows from what I wrote.)
- d.
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
No indeed it doesn't, and you should always warm the pot when making tea. (i.e. I have no idea how your comment follows from what I wrote.)
I was keeping it brief for sake of sheer artistic wonder, though I perhaps should have acknowledged your agreement with my general criticism. Sorry about that.
e.g. the War on Blogs, wherein some editors have got it into their heads that ALL BLOGS ARE EVIL AND MUST NEVER BE USED IN REFERENCES rather than e.g. regarding them as, say, lesser sources than peer-reviewed academic papers and assuming the reader can read. The response to crap sources is to say "those are crap sources, cut it out" rather than countering foolishness with foolishness.
There is a fundamental difference between quoting a source and quoting an interpretation, although, granted, all sources can be regarded as interpretations. Thus there is some value judgement going on with regard to whats what which effects how an article is presented.
On non-contentious topics, the right way to do it would be to shift it to the talk page for discussion and an attempt at sourcing, e.g. the stuff on the early [[Casio Exilim]]s being crap in low light is observed by a pile of Exilim owners (e.g. me) but I can't find a good source - so out it goes as original research, but it's on the talk page should I or someone find something verifiable showing this to be an issue.
Right, if I write some thing of value the last thing I need to is to have it reverted wholesale, and done so in a way that violates real policy like NPOV and CIVIL (before I can even correct it or spellcheck it no less), based on some buncombe claim to CITE, V, NOR, etc. I hear you David.
On contentious topics, there is good reason to be hard-arsed about sources. But that doesn't mean you go overboard and legalistic because someone who hates blogs edit-warred that wording into WP:V.
This is an interesting point, in that we can criticise particular aspects of policies as being naziesque. That is a beginning, as Pai Mei once said.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
It's obvious why, isn't it? Editors hide behind policy in order to hide their ulterior motives when they have an agenda......this is why we have the "Ignore all rules" corollary, to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia when policy threatens to compromise it.
On 8/14/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
e.g. the War on Blogs, wherein some editors have got it into their heads that ALL BLOGS ARE EVIL AND MUST NEVER BE USED IN REFERENCES rather than e.g. regarding them as, say, lesser sources than peer-reviewed academic papers and assuming the reader can read. The response to crap sources is to say "those are crap sources, cut it out" rather than countering foolishness with foolishness.
Exactly. Some blogs are very credible and reliable, because they are written by well-known people in their fields with their own personal reputations on the line. The same goes for newsgroup postings, back in the 'golden age' of Usenet.
On non-contentious topics, the right way to do it would be to shift it to the talk page for discussion and an attempt at sourcing, e.g. the stuff on the early [[Casio Exilim]]s being crap in low light is observed by a pile of Exilim owners (e.g. me) but I can't find a good source - so out it goes as original research, but it's on the talk page should I or someone find something verifiable showing this to be an issue.
Hmm, one would have thought that some review somewhere would have picked that up, but I guess that's why it's worth leaving it on the talk page, because someone eventually will find a source saying that.
On contentious topics, there is good reason to be hard-arsed about sources. But that doesn't mean you go overboard and legalistic because someone who hates blogs edit-warred that wording into WP:V.
I think it's largely a case of policy being driven by the hard cases - the one-tenth of one percent of articles, or fewer, that are truly contentious edit war battlefields.
-Matt
On 8/14/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. Some blogs are very credible and reliable, because they are written by well-known people in their fields with their own personal reputations on the line. The same goes for newsgroup postings, back in the 'golden age' of Usenet.
To follow up to my own posting, one of my concerns about pushing too hard about 'reliable sources' is that it discourages people from sourcing AT ALL and encourages mis-sourcing.
-Matt
stevertigo wrote:
Im not exactly the most citatious Wikipedian, but nor do I have any tendency to make claims which arent easily verifiable. Over the years though Ive encountered a number of Wikipedians (I wont name names) who abuse or violate a clean interpretation of CIVIL by referring to CITE or V as a basis for what is essentially ownership of an article; in the form of a revert, rather than a constructive edit, correction, or (gasp!) a collaborative and helpful attempt to find a source.
Im not sure on the stats, but it is my impression that this demand for verifiability is 1) deletionistic 2) one sided, and not applied to one's own person and 3) comes with some attached notion of "reliable sources" by which material from any deemed "unreliable" sources can be deleted.
Thats the topic. Discuss.
Wikilove, -Stevertigo
There has already been considerable response on this thread, but I want to give my first impressions before being influenced by other POVs. I fundamentally agree. There needs to be some priority between any two parts of the rules, and in most cases civility should have the highest priority. There would be some exceptions such as clear instances of libel against a living person, but few other violations of rules have such immediate consequences that their correction can't wait a week. When adherence to rules becomes obsessively impatient it causes as much or more damage than the original rule violation. We kill the patient with our medicine, thankful that he did not die from his original disease.
I agree with your three impressions, but I'm afraid that the second may be more of a truism since none of us likes to have his work deleted. The distinction between reliable and unreliable sources does nothing more than add a new level of subjectivity. Either may be linked to an article about the publication where the reasons for its (un)reliability can be discussed. Beyond that it's up to the reader to decide if he accepts the authority of that publication.
Ec
I think it's most useful to detect original research and speculation. For example, in [[Colonization of Mars]], I noticed two recent additions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonization_of_Mars&diff=6694... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonization_of_Mars&diff=6695...) that weren't common knowledge and I was wondering where the heck they found this information.
I added the dreaded {{fact}} template: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonization_of_Mars&diff=6703...
Another editor found the sources and put it in. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonization_of_Mars&diff=6707...
I don't see how this would be the actions of a CITE Nazi, and indeed, it prevented me from simply reverting the two additions.
On 8/14/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Im not exactly the most citatious Wikipedian, but nor do I have any tendency to make claims which arent easily verifiable. Over the years though Ive encountered a number of Wikipedians (I wont name names) who abuse or violate a clean interpretation of CIVIL by referring to CITE or V as a basis for what is essentially ownership of an article; in the form of a revert, rather than a constructive edit, correction, or (gasp!) a collaborative and helpful attempt to find a source.
Im not sure on the stats, but it is my impression that this demand for verifiability is 1) deletionistic 2) one sided, and not applied to one's own person and 3) comes with some attached notion of "reliable sources" by which material from any deemed "unreliable" sources can be deleted.
Thats the topic. Discuss.
Wikilove, -Stevertigo
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
Death Phoenix wrote:
I think it's most useful to detect original research and speculation. For example, in [[Colonization of Mars]], I noticed two recent additions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonization_of_Mars&diff=6694... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonization_of_Mars&diff=6695...) that weren't common knowledge and I was wondering where the heck they found this information.
As another potentially interesting case, I recently added 272(!) {{citation needed}}s to the article [[List of Star Wars races]] (before I subsequently split it into five sub-articles for size reasons, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Star_Wars_races&oldid=68661770 for the pre-split version).
I felt this was a reasonable thing to do since the Star Wars universe is defined and described in a truly vast range of books and movies and other media, and each of the hundreds of races listed on that page could well come from completely different sources. Ensuring that each one had at least one citation seems a lot easier this way than by putting a single {{unreferenced}} at the top - this way there's more of a checklist one can knock items off of by substituting references in their place (and indeed some references were added even as I did the work of requesting citations).
It'll probably take years for most of those cite requests to be resolved (unless some brave soul with good access to Star Wars sources makes a major project of it), but IMO eventualism is a perfectly fine philosophy for this sort of thing.
On 8/14/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
I added the dreaded {{fact}} template:
<snip>
I don't see how this would be the actions of a CITE Nazi, and indeed, it prevented me from simply reverting the two additions.
You've got it in one. Asking for references is one thing - and a good thing, often. Reverting what is probably an accurate addition out of sheer bloody mindedness is another thing altogether...
Steve
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:04:56 -0700 (PDT) stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
stevertigo, I am *very* with the problem you are describing. I don't think WP:CITE itself is the cause of the problem. WP:OWN is. The cause of the problem is Article Squatters.
I suggest to completely change the meaning of WP:OWN.
The Remedy I suggest is to have multiple versions of an article about the same topic, written each by different sets of people. In the way that NPOV on a controversial subject cannot be achieved in a single article, but only by using multiple articles that are each WP:OWNed by different sets of people.
So, say you're writing about, uh, bunnies, and MisterX joins in and you quickly figure out that you cannot work together, then instead of sinking into this HELLHOLE of edit warring, you'd each get [[bunnies_(by_stevertigo)]] and [[bunnies_(by_misterX)]]
and [[bunnies]] itself being no more than a disambiguation page.
Alternative, turn wikipedia into a metawikipedia that just contains links to other free online encyclopedia's entries. Its about the same thing, just the branding is different.
On 15/08/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
I suggest to completely change the meaning of WP:OWN. The Remedy I suggest is to have multiple versions of an article about the same topic, written each by different sets of people. In the way that NPOV on a controversial subject cannot be achieved in a single article, but only by using multiple articles that are each WP:OWNed by different sets of people.
I think a better idea is to write NPOV articles, not to mess up the encyclopedia to appease those editors who are here to push a POV.
Alternative, turn wikipedia into a metawikipedia that just contains links to other free online encyclopedia's entries. Its about the same thing, just the branding is different.
So why not do this elsewhere, rather than using Wikipedia's name?
- d.
What you describe is a POV fork. I believe this introduces another problem into the equation.
On 8/15/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:04:56 -0700 (PDT) stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
stevertigo, I am *very* with the problem you are describing. I don't think WP:CITE itself is the cause of the problem. WP:OWN is. The cause of the problem is Article Squatters.
I suggest to completely change the meaning of WP:OWN.
The Remedy I suggest is to have multiple versions of an article about the same topic, written each by different sets of people. In the way that NPOV on a controversial subject cannot be achieved in a single article, but only by using multiple articles that are each WP:OWNed by different sets of people.
So, say you're writing about, uh, bunnies, and MisterX joins in and you quickly figure out that you cannot work together, then instead of sinking into this HELLHOLE of edit warring, you'd each get [[bunnies_(by_stevertigo)]] and [[bunnies_(by_misterX)]]
and [[bunnies]] itself being no more than a disambiguation page.
Alternative, turn wikipedia into a metawikipedia that just contains links to other free online encyclopedia's entries. Its about the same thing, just the branding is different.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
stevertigo, I am *very* with the problem you are describing. I don't think WP:CITE itself is the cause of the problem. WP:OWN is. The cause of the problem is Article Squatters. I suggest to completely change the meaning of WP:OWN.
I think this is a valid point. The rest however fails float test, if only because having twenty articles about the same thing is as pointless as anything Ive ever heard. The proplem is ownership, how does instituting *formal ownership* solve that problem?
Somebody mentioned Wikinfo, which IIRC splits its articles according different general points of view. That's at least workable and in extreme cases might resemble our /draft method, but ultimately the goal is integration according to NPOV.
A lot of people can't handle that basic old NPOV rule which is why we have citenazis in the first place. Cite, V, etc. are part of a static model of Wikipedia which strives for "perfection" but fails to the dynamic communal process by which we built the Wikipedia to begin with.
At one point, our most sophisticated policy after NPOV was the "leave something for people to do" guideline. Wikipedia of course has a bigger "ownership problem" than just the ownership of articles.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/15/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Somebody mentioned Wikinfo, which IIRC splits its articles according different general points of view. That's at least workable and in extreme cases might resemble our /draft method, but ultimately the goal is integration according to NPOV.
I think the quality of two separate articles written by anti-circumcisionists and pro-circumcisionists would be a hell of a lot worse than a single article fought over by both groups. At least we force them to engage with each other and find a tiny bit of common ground.
Steve
On 16/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/15/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Somebody mentioned Wikinfo, which IIRC splits its articles according different general points of view. That's at least workable and in extreme cases might resemble our /draft method, but ultimately the goal is integration according to NPOV.
I think the quality of two separate articles written by anti-circumcisionists and pro-circumcisionists would be a hell of a lot worse than a single article fought over by both groups. At least we force them to engage with each other and find a tiny bit of common ground.
In that particular case, I also like what actually happened: activists put out calls to action on mailing lists to push a POV, and ... a lot of the people came to Wikipedia, liked what they saw and started contributing with a view to NPOV. Informed by their POV, but not under its spell.
The perennial proposals to run article forks seem to me to embrace pathological behaviour. Most articles really aren't problematic.
- d.
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:29:29 +0100 "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The perennial proposals to run article forks seem to me to embrace pathological behaviour. Most articles really aren't problematic.
Sure, most articles aren't problematic. They're just unverifiable nonsense vanity cruft ;)
But I *promise* you that you won't ever find a good solution for shit like libanon-israel or circumcision or - you name it - without making signed forks, where different (sets of) people can write multiple coherent articles about the same thing, instead of forcing everybody to mess with the same one.
On 16/08/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
But I *promise* you that you won't ever find a good solution for shit like libanon-israel or circumcision or - you name it - without making signed forks, where different (sets of) people can write multiple coherent articles about the same thing, instead of forcing everybody to mess with the same one.
Yeah, but I'm entirely unconvinced the result, even in the pathological cases, would be better for the reader. The previous example you gave - anti-circumcision activism - was dealt with not by forking the articles, but by dealing with the problem editors. Since they were the problem. Editors who can't cope with having to work effectively with people of a different POV really shouldn't be editing while they can't cope with it.
In cases like Israel-Palestine, the article conflict won't be solved unless and until the real-world conflict is solved, and even then. Probably it needs a permanent "current event" tag ;-)
I'm really not convinced that examples like this warrant throwing away NPOV. I really think NPOV is Wikipedia's secret sauce. Not just the wiki editing model - NPOV is the radically new thing Wikpedia does in terms of the actual content.
- d.
On 8/16/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'm really not convinced that examples like this warrant throwing away NPOV. I really think NPOV is Wikipedia's secret sauce. Not just the wiki editing model - NPOV is the radically new thing Wikpedia does in terms of the actual content.
Probably articles involving the Israel-Palestine conflict will never settle down because no article could ever exist that would be perceived as neutral by the entrenched editors of either side. Different perceptions of reality I guess...
Steve
On 16/08/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:29:29 +0100 "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The perennial proposals to run article forks seem to me to embrace pathological behaviour. Most articles really aren't problematic.
Sure, most articles aren't problematic. They're just unverifiable nonsense vanity cruft ;)
But I *promise* you that you won't ever find a good solution for shit like libanon-israel or circumcision or - you name it - without making signed forks, where different (sets of) people can write multiple coherent articles about the same thing, instead of forcing everybody to mess with the same one.
You keep writing suggesting this. But the fact is, intentionally POV-forked articles are simply never going to exist on the Wikipedia project. The culture just won't accept it; the basic operating rules just won't extend to it. If you feel it is so essential, please feel free to take the database, fork it, and go work on another project.
But continually harping on about forked! articles! solution! to! all! problems! achieves nothing.
I think people who believe that POV forks are the way to go, should help out Wikinfo.
The rest should help improving articles in the spirit of NPOV.
May the best project win (mindshare, fame and glory).
-- nyenyec
On 8/16/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
You keep writing suggesting this. But the fact is, intentionally POV-forked articles are simply never going to exist on the Wikipedia project. The culture just won't accept it; the basic operating rules just won't extend to it. If you feel it is so essential, please feel free to take the database, fork it, and go work on another project.
But continually harping on about forked! articles! solution! to! all! problems! achieves nothing.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:26:56 +0200 "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/15/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Somebody mentioned Wikinfo, which IIRC splits its articles according different general points of view. That's at least workable and in extreme cases might resemble our /draft method, but ultimately the goal is integration according to NPOV.
I think the quality of two separate articles written by anti-circumcisionists and pro-circumcisionists would be a hell of a lot worse than a single article fought over by both groups. At least we force them to engage with each other and find a tiny bit of common ground.
Disagree. An article is an argument (a presentation thereof) and two people editing the same article is like two people talking at the same time, never letting the other ever talk.
With two separate articles, there is of course still interaction - but now, the two people are trying to outdo each other who has the better article. Think about THAT.
--- Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
Disagree. An article is an argument (a presentation thereof) and two people editing the same article is like two people talking at the same time, never letting the other ever talk.
With two separate articles, there is of course still interaction - but now, the two people are trying to outdo each other who has the better article. Think about THAT.
You can disagree all you like, of course, but that doesnt mean that people whove been doing this for years will all of a sudden change NPOV.
If you do have a point, its with regard to the limitations of wiki software for efficiently handling controversial extremely high-energy editing. Thats an issue for the software developers, and theyve solved a number of problems over the years with regard to this very issue.
You can pitch solutions to them (search "mediazilla" ) for how to make the software work more efficiently. They have a very efficient process for how to deal with suggestions from the general public.
You should also read up on trust metrics, as those seem to be (somewhere) in Wikipedia's future. Heres my basic breakdown of TM: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/2006-July/000160.html
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Mark Gallagher wrote:
The original research policy can be summarised as: "don't make shit up".
Excellent!
Since a small but significant proportion of the editors who fall afoul of this policy don't tend to think of their activities as "making shit up"[0], we had to craft a new stick with a nail in it (sorry, "policy") and write "WP:NOR" on the side[1]. NOR exists to deal with physics crackpots and the like; however, in our enthusiasm to follow policy, however poorly-written, to the letter, we trip over ourselves to explain that articles on TV programmes must be deleted, Jimbo Wales can't advertise his own birthday, diagrams must be copied from textbooks, and high-quality GFDL pictures from amateur photographer Wikipedians cannot be accepted.
I haven't read the /Star Trek/ uniforms article, but I can see several ways such an article could be written in a way that *isn't* in contravention of the spirit of the principle whilst still falling afoul of the letter of the policy. And in such cases, frankly: fuck policy.
I'm glad to read that classical Australian bullshit detection is alive and well. :-)
Ec
A source doesn't have to be canonical to be a good secondary source. For example, Harry Potter articles could cite the Harry Potter Lexicon as their source instead of the books by Rowling herself. The Lexicon editors did all the research for us and no original research would be required.
Mgm
On 8/11/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
Cool Cat recently created an article called Starfleet Uniformshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet_Uniforms, and it was nominated for deletion as cruft and OR.
The screencaps/promo photos in the article, IMO, acted as a reputable source. I mean, how else (canonically) are you going to know about the uniform switch between TOS and TNG? Using a book is not canonical, and therefore is surely not [[WP:V]].
As for fancruft, how is an article about Starfleet uniforms fancruft. In some people's opinion, any article to do with any fictional is fancruft. But is the article on Jean-Luc Picard fancruft? I think not.
Your thoughts?
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/11/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
A source doesn't have to be canonical to be a good secondary source. For example, Harry Potter articles could cite the Harry Potter Lexicon as their source instead of the books by Rowling herself. The Lexicon editors did all the research for us and no original research would be required.
Oh, I interpreted the "using a book is not canonical" to mean "using a Star Trek novel is not describing the same universe as the TV series". What you said is definitely correct.
Steve
On 8/11/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
Cool Cat recently created an article called Starfleet Uniformshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet_Uniforms, and it was nominated for deletion as cruft and OR.
The screencaps/promo photos in the article, IMO, acted as a reputable source. I mean, how else (canonically) are you going to know about the uniform switch between TOS and TNG? Using a book is not canonical, and therefore is surely not [[WP:V]].
But wouldn't that specific example be better handled by an entry in TNG with two images and "As one can see looking at the screenshots, the uniform in TNG differs from the classic uniform of TOS..." than an entire article?
As for fancruft, how is an article about Starfleet uniforms fancruft. In some people's opinion, any article to do with any fictional is fancruft. But is the article on Jean-Luc Picard fancruft? I think not.
Your thoughts?
-- Joe Anderson
~maru