I don't get it. Journalism follows one practice, academic research another. I think Wikipedia follows a modified version of latter.
In journalism, stories are published with no indication of the source other than the reporter's name (or the name of the wire service). _Sources are not cited_. We rely on the newspaper's editorial staff, the newspaper's reputation, and the reporter's responsibility to the profession of journalism to follow appropriate standards to insure that most of what we read is true. We usually have no way of directly evaluating what's behind any story.
In academic research, every source is cited in a way that allows the reader to verify it personally. Every fact that appears in a paper is either the personal testimony of the author of the paper, we did thus and such, we saw thus and such, we concluded thus and such. _Or, it is a source citation._ These source citations are usually journal references, but may occasionally be "personal communications." The journals and sources are simply _named._ Sez who? Sez Frotz and Glotz 1989, Zeitschrift für Krankschaft und Geerschift, 22(6):116-122. In most cases the reader can easily verify that the Zeitschrift exists and that pages 116-122 of that number have that article and that it says what the paper's author says it says.
_It is left completely up to the reader to know whether or not the Zeitschrift is a peer reviewed journal or not, what its reputation is, and whether Frotz and Glotz are competent_.
I completely fail to see _any problem in general_ in citing USENET as a source, provided an actual citation is given so the reader can verify that the posting says what the article says it says.
That does not mean that a statement citing USENET should necessarily go in an article, or that citing USENET, or The New York Times, or _Nature_, waves a magic wand over a passage that protects it from criticism, discussion, replacement, or deletion.
A good example of what I think to be an entirely appropriate use of USENET is in tracking the approximate time when phrases or neologisms or memes became current in the Internet community.
Conversely, The Boston Globe might carry a story quoting sources criticizing a judge. That would be a very reliable source. That does NOT mean that it would automatically be appropriate for a Wikipedia article to say ANY of these things:
*Judge so-and-so lacks proper judicial demeanor.
*Judge so-and-so was criticized for lacking proper judicial demeanor.
*On day so-and-so, page so-and-so, the Boston Globe quoted so-and-so as saying Judge so-and-so is "a very passionate woman, and is not afraid to go and dance and have a couple of glasses of wine and have a good time. She's not your typical judge."
The third form is a valid citation, but may or may not be appropriate to the context of an article.
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
I don't get it. Journalism follows one practice, academic research another. I think Wikipedia follows a modified version of latter.
In journalism, stories are published with no indication of the source other than the reporter's name (or the name of the wire service). _Sources are not cited_. We rely on the newspaper's editorial staff, the newspaper's reputation, and the reporter's responsibility to the profession of journalism to follow appropriate standards to insure that most of what we read is true. We usually have no way of directly evaluating what's behind any story.
And that it why you shouldn't trust them :)
In academic research, every source is cited in a way that allows the reader to verify it personally. Every fact that appears in a paper is either the personal testimony of the author of the paper, we did thus and such, we saw thus and such, we concluded thus and such. _Or, it is a source citation._ These source citations are usually journal references, but may occasionally be "personal communications." The journals and sources are simply _named._ Sez who? Sez Frotz and Glotz 1989, Zeitschrift für Krankschaft und Geerschift, 22(6):116-122. In most cases the reader can easily verify that the Zeitschrift exists and that pages 116-122 of that number have that article and that it says what the paper's author says it says.
Yes, that it good...
_It is left completely up to the reader to know whether or not the Zeitschrift is a peer reviewed journal or not, what its reputation is, and whether Frotz and Glotz are competent_.
That will depend on where you read what Frotz and Glotz have written. If it is a peer-reviewed journal, book etc. the editors /should/ have checked all that.
I completely fail to see _any problem in general_ in citing USENET as a source, provided an actual citation is given so the reader can verify that the posting says what the article says it says.
Neither do I. If we have an article saying "Linus talked to Fred", and we got that off USENET, it is OK. It is a *fact* that a person called Linus posted something to Fred via USENET.
That does not mean that a statement citing USENET should necessarily go in an article, or that citing USENET, or The New York Times, or _Nature_, waves a magic wand over a passage that protects it from criticism, discussion, replacement, or deletion.
But if the article is about USENET, we take USENET as the source... if the article is about NYT, take NYT as a source... if the article is about /Nature/, take /Nature/ as a source. USENET is possibly more reliable in this sense because the archives are obtainable so easily. To check a fact in a NYT article, I need to travel 30km to a library, see if they have the relevant edition, and then use a microfiche/film reader to see it. *Perhaps* the library has a hard copy, or the content is available online, but I don't know for certain. USENET is *more* reliable in this case.
A good example of what I think to be an entirely appropriate use of USENET is in tracking the approximate time when phrases or neologisms or memes became current in the Internet community.
Up until 1994, yes.
Conversely, The Boston Globe might carry a story quoting sources criticizing a judge. That would be a very reliable source. That does NOT mean that it would automatically be appropriate for a Wikipedia article to say ANY of these things:
You trust what commercial newspapers (or any commercial new sources) say? I don't.
*Judge so-and-so lacks proper judicial demeanor.
*Judge so-and-so was criticized for lacking proper judicial demeanor.
*On day so-and-so, page so-and-so, the Boston Globe quoted so-and-so as saying Judge so-and-so is "a very passionate woman, and is not afraid to go and dance and have a couple of glasses of wine and have a good time. She's not your typical judge."
The third form is a valid citation, but may or may not be appropriate to the context of an article.
That would be removed for being dodgy english, not a defamatory statement. If we said "USA Today published claims that Judge so-and-so was a dirty scoundrel", *and* it was relevant, I think it could stay in. Remember, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a lonely housewifes ramblings on the world. NPOV means facts, which are axiomatically neutral, not opinions, which are axiomatically biased.
- -- Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
On 5/8/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
_It is left completely up to the reader to know whether or not the Zeitschrift is a peer reviewed journal or not, what its reputation is, and whether Frotz and Glotz are competent_.
I disagree on this point. I think sources which are regarded as questionable should be flagged as such in as NPOV a way as possible. On articles where there are sources which are in contradiction with one another, I think attribution of source info is useful for all parties.
The textbook example is for articles on various evolution/creationism disputes. If the matter is a factual statement I think it should be noted if the source is not peer reviewed or at least has an over-reaching agenda. Something as simple as (Creationist journal) is enough and not perjorative. If anybody gets irritated at that then we can label the non-Creationist, mainstream science sources as (Mainstream scientific journal).
(This might be a good place to note that "mainstream" is a very convenient way to turn an "ontological" statement into a "sociological" one. It allows you to very quickly stop arguing about the truth of something and instead turn it into a question of community consensus. Those who disagree with the mainstream opinion are usually more than happy to see it identified as such -- for them "mainstream" means "cow-like", for everyone else, "mainstream" means "reliable". In any event, such a "sociological" approach means you don't have to make WP conclude either way on an answer. I think it is one of the easiest ways to make NPOV work. Facts and opinions do not just exist by themselves in space; they are constructed and maintained by humans, and should be attributed to humans whenever possible.)
Additionally, there are a lot of things published in scientific and academic journals which are considerably controversial and not representative of the consensus of the community as whole. If they are noteworthy to the article they should of course be mentioned, but their "controversial" status should be noted. (Again, a "sociological" term, although this one is more easily conflated with "fringe" which can be interpreted as a pejorative).
Other than that, I agree with what you have said for the most part... there is nothing wrong with including "dodgy" sources, though we should not feel unhampered to give the reader neutral hints as to how they should feel about the source (noting whether it is peer-reviewed or not does not pass judgment, it is simply a statement of methodological fact, the reader may make of it what they will).
FF