Africa was brought up in discussion of verifiability. This raises an important question, should/can we be lax references for African content in en?
Suppose a tribes' elder writes an article on his village, he'll do it based on oral history, or one-off documents. This information may be recorded in books, but these books are stashed away in libraries miles upon miles away.
What happens then? It's true information, but there's little or no available sources for the writer to cite.
Nick/Zanimum
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
On 3/2/06, Nicholas Moreau beaubeaver@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Africa was brought up in discussion of verifiability. This raises an important question, should/can we be lax references for African content in en?
Suppose a tribes' elder writes an article on his village, he'll do it based on oral history, or one-off documents. This information may be recorded in books, but these books are stashed away in libraries miles upon miles away.
What happens then? It's true information, but there's little or no available sources for the writer to cite.
Err, how would the elder find Wikipedia?
I think it's safe to say, at least for the time being, that most of our article writing will be done by people in countries that have access to modern libraries. If/when we start seeing any substantial amount of content added by people who cannot use published sources (but nevertheless have a decent Internet connection and a working knowledge of English), we can deal with possible exceptions to policy.
Kirill Lokshin
To be blunt, which bit of saying that every bit of info must be supported by a verifiable and reputable source is unclear?
In this instance, the information is clearly unverifiable, so it shouldn't be added.
Jon
Nicholas Moreau beaubeaver@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Africa was brought up in discussion of verifiability. This raises an important question, should/can we be lax references for African content in en?
Suppose a tribes' elder writes an article on his village, he'll do it based on oral history, or one-off documents. This information may be recorded in books, but these books are stashed away in libraries miles upon miles away.
What happens then? It's true information, but there's little or no available sources for the writer to cite.
Nick/Zanimum
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo.
Actually, it's an interesting extreme, but to be honest, this is the way a lot of articles are written. Generally I write from what I know and find sources to support "what I know" and to fill in the gaps in what's in my head. To begin with, when I didn't know how things worked, I didn't even realise that I was supposed to be providing sources.
Today there are two main ways I write, but in both cases I tend to work from what I already know. When I write about science I write without sources, but my knowledge is based on sources that I have read. The challenge is to find the sources to support the info I got from them. On the other hand, when I write about Trinidadian topics I am writing from personal experience, which I must then find sources to support. This can be difficult, because when I read academic sources (especially those written by outsiders) I tend to find myself picking out their mistakes. All sorts of great article ideas go unwritten or remain as stubs because I can't find acceptable sources.
Is it POV to discard a source if it fails to support your narrative? Absolutely. But if the alternative is to use an obviously flawed source, what do you do? In my experience, it has been "not write the article". But if someone else were to use to flawed source and assert something that is inaccurate, I'd be in a very difficult position - knowing, on one hand that the material was flawed or one-sided, but lacking the sources to support an alternative narrative.
To the person working from oral sources, there's a problem with Wikipedia. Since the written sources are largely controlled by outsiders or certain classes, systemic bias will be re-inforced by simply sticking to verifiable sources. On the other hand, "because I grew up there I know the place" isn't good enough for an encyclopaedia either
Ian
On 3/2/06, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
To be blunt, which bit of saying that every bit of info must be supported by a verifiable and reputable source is unclear?
In this instance, the information is clearly unverifiable, so it shouldn't be added.
Jon
Nicholas Moreau beaubeaver@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Africa was brought up in discussion of verifiability. This raises an important question, should/can we be lax references for African content in en?
Suppose a tribes' elder writes an article on his village, he'll do it based on oral history, or one-off documents. This information may be recorded in books, but these books are stashed away in libraries miles upon miles away.
What happens then? It's true information, but there's little or no available sources for the writer to cite.
Nick/Zanimum
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Too grim. What is a reasonable source varies with the subject.
Fred
On Mar 2, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Jon wrote:
To be blunt, which bit of saying that every bit of info must be supported by a verifiable and reputable source is unclear?
In this instance, the information is clearly unverifiable, so it shouldn't be added.
Jon
On 3/2/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Too grim. What is a reasonable source varies with the subject.
Fred
On Mar 2, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Jon wrote:
To be blunt, which bit of saying that every bit of info must be supported by a verifiable and reputable source is unclear?
The word "supported" is extremely ambiguous. This part of verifiability is unarguable: All information in Wikipedia must be directly verifiable, or have been published in a verifiable and credible source.
What we've been arguing about is what to do if those sources are not actually cited.
So, in your sentence does "supported" mean the sources must exist, or they must be cited?
Steve
Indeed, but something that is inherently unverifiable, as an otherwise unpublished report is, is never a reasonable source.
Jon
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: Too grim. What is a reasonable source varies with the subject.
Fred
On Mar 2, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Jon wrote:
To be blunt, which bit of saying that every bit of info must be supported by a verifiable and reputable source is unclear?
In this instance, the information is clearly unverifiable, so it shouldn't be added.
Jon
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
There is quite a difference between unverifiable and something that is just difficult to verify. There are also overlaps with 'no original research' here. In the end, common sense needs to be factored in. What is common knowledge in one part of the world may not be in another. Verifiability should not be turned into a bureaucratic exercise, where information is removed because it hasn't filled its form in correctly. Of course, editors should be challenged to give supporting evidence for something, but it should not be rejected just because it cannot be supported by internet sources or an American/Australian/British library. Such a line would only increase the systemic bias towards English-speaking computer users in developed countries. The world is growing ever smaller, but it's not yet that small.
Gareth Hughes.
On 02/03/06, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Indeed, but something that is inherently unverifiable, as an otherwise unpublished report is, is never a reasonable source.
Jon
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: Too grim. What is a reasonable source varies with the subject.
Fred
On Mar 2, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Jon wrote:
To be blunt, which bit of saying that every bit of info must be supported by a verifiable and reputable source is unclear?
In this instance, the information is clearly unverifiable, so it shouldn't be added.
Jon
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/2/06, Gareth Hughes ([[User:Garzo]]) garzohugo+wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There is quite a difference between unverifiable and something that is just difficult to verify. There are also overlaps with 'no original research' here. In the end, common sense needs to be factored in. What is common knowledge in one part of the world may not be in another. Verifiability should not be turned into a bureaucratic exercise, where information is removed because it hasn't filled its form in correctly. Of course, editors should be challenged to give supporting evidence for something, but it should not be rejected just because it cannot be supported by internet sources or an American/Australian/British library. Such a line would only increase the systemic bias towards English-speaking computer users in developed countries. The world is growing ever smaller, but it's not yet that small.
Gareth Hughes.
As far as I can tell, that is the line. A person can't just go and interview a village elder - that would be OR. Personally, I could see a case being made for interviewing someone, adding the transcript to Wikisource or something of the sort, and referencing that as what "Person X has said". As it stand though, I think it would fall afoul of NOR.
Ian
On 02/03/06, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
To be blunt, which bit of saying that every bit of info must be supported by a verifiable and reputable source is unclear?
In this instance, the information is clearly unverifiable, so it shouldn't be added.
Jon
Why shouldn't unverifiable information be added? Most of the content on Wikipedia is unverified.
Are people going to go and remove it all?
It's pretty POV to just pick and choose the stuff you don't like, and remove it because of it being "unverifiable".
I'll point out that I think it's most sensible to rely only on verified information, but Wikipedia has not in the past seriously implemented such theoretical ideals. If people are going to start doing so, do it across the board please. I don't doubt the encyclopaedia would be a vast amount smaller and less broad if only verified information is left in it! Wikipedia has not succeeded at even beginning to conform to its ideals.
Zoney
-- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
On 3/3/06, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
I'll point out that I think it's most sensible to rely only on verified information, but Wikipedia has not in the past seriously implemented such theoretical ideals. If people are going to start doing so, do it across the board please. I don't doubt the encyclopaedia would be a vast amount smaller and less broad if only verified information is left in it! Wikipedia has not succeeded at even beginning to conform to its ideals.
You're confusing "verified" and "verifiable". All Wikipedia requires is that information actually has been published or is otherwise verifiable. We don't do fact checking, per se.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/3/06, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
I'll point out that I think it's most sensible to rely only on verified information, but Wikipedia has not in the past seriously implemented such theoretical ideals. If people are going to start doing so, do it across the board please. I don't doubt the encyclopaedia would be a vast amount smaller and less broad if only verified information is left in it! Wikipedia has not succeeded at even beginning to conform to its ideals.
You're confusing "verified" and "verifiable". All Wikipedia requires is that information actually has been published or is otherwise verifiable. We don't do fact checking, per se.
Can anyone answer me why we *don't* do fact checking? Given that we're so big on asking for sources/references (which we're clearly not, yet), who is actually checking them? Or isn't anyone?
Does anyone know of a WikiProject which goes through articles and checks that the references actually say what people are claiming they say? If there's not one, who will start it? I for one would be interested in doing some of this stuff; I have access to at least two good libraries (University & State) and could easily spare an hour a week to do this kind of stuff.
On 3/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/3/06, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
I'll point out that I think it's most sensible to rely only on verified information, but Wikipedia has not in the past seriously implemented such theoretical ideals. If people are going to start doing so, do it across the board please. I don't doubt the encyclopaedia would be a vast amount smaller and less broad if only verified information is left in it! Wikipedia has not succeeded at even beginning to conform to its ideals.
You're confusing "verified" and "verifiable". All Wikipedia requires is that information actually has been published or is otherwise verifiable. We don't do fact checking, per se.
Can anyone answer me why we *don't* do fact checking? Given that we're so big on asking for sources/references (which we're clearly not, yet), who is actually checking them? Or isn't anyone?
Does anyone know of a WikiProject which goes through articles and checks that the references actually say what people are claiming they say? If there's not one, who will start it? I for one would be interested in doing some of this stuff; I have access to at least two good libraries (University & State) and could easily spare an hour a week to do this kind of stuff.
Go forth!
I think the fact-checking phase of Wikipedia in bulk is yet to come -- right now we're in the "add the sources" phase.
Somewhat similar to the images projects -- first we uploaded images willy-nilly, now we're adding copyright information, then we'll start filtering/replacing. I'm waiting for the project to replace photographic images with high-quality original drawings by Wikipedians.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 3/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/3/06, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
I'll point out that I think it's most sensible to rely only on verified information, but Wikipedia has not in the past seriously implemented such theoretical ideals. If people are going to start doing so, do it across the board please. I don't doubt the encyclopaedia would be a vast amount smaller and less broad if only verified information is left in it! Wikipedia has not succeeded at even beginning to conform to its ideals.
You're confusing "verified" and "verifiable". All Wikipedia requires is that information actually has been published or is otherwise verifiable. We don't do fact checking, per se.
Can anyone answer me why we *don't* do fact checking? Given that we're so big on asking for sources/references (which we're clearly not, yet), who is actually checking them? Or isn't anyone?
Does anyone know of a WikiProject which goes through articles and checks that the references actually say what people are claiming they say? If there's not one, who will start it? I for one would be interested in doing some of this stuff; I have access to at least two good libraries (University & State) and could easily spare an hour a week to do this kind of stuff.
Go forth!
It's a daunting task if there's no co-ordination and no place to say "I have fact-checked revision XYZ of article Foobahbaz".
I think the fact-checking phase of Wikipedia in bulk is yet to come -- right now we're in the "add the sources" phase.
Somewhat similar to the images projects -- first we uploaded images willy-nilly, now we're adding copyright information, then we'll start filtering/replacing. I'm waiting for the project to replace photographic images with high-quality original drawings by Wikipedians.
Except for cases where we're replacing "fair use" images, why should we remove perfectly good photographs? Um, ok, and also for cases where a photograph is likely to offend... hrm, some religions believe that any depiction of /anything/ is idolatory, so maybe we should just remove all images "so as not to offend"?
Alright, now I'm thoroughly confused. Why do you want to replace photographs with drawings? Should we also replace all our current sound files with vocal interpretations of them?
On 3/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote: Except for cases where we're replacing "fair use" images, why should we remove perfectly good photographs? Um, ok, and also for cases where a photograph is likely to offend... hrm, some religions believe that any depiction of /anything/ is idolatory, so maybe we should just remove all images "so as not to offend"?
Alright, now I'm thoroughly confused. Why do you want to replace photographs with drawings? Should we also replace all our current sound files with vocal interpretations of them?
I was talking about "fair use" images.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 3/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote: Except for cases where we're replacing "fair use" images,
<snip>
I was talking about "fair use" images.
Ok, you're not as silly as I thought you were, and I'm a lot sillier than you thought I was :)
On 3/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 3/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote: Except for cases where we're replacing "fair use" images,
<snip> > > I was talking about "fair use" images. >
Ok, you're not as silly as I thought you were, and I'm a lot sillier than you thought I was :)
Though a project to replace all the photographs on Wikipedia with drawings *would* be entertaining.
On 3/6/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Though a project to replace all the photographs on Wikipedia with drawings *would* be entertaining.
If a little short notice for this year's April Fools' :)
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/6/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Though a project to replace all the photographs on Wikipedia with drawings *would* be entertaining.
If a little short notice for this year's April Fools' :)
A little tinkering with the image-crunching pipeline could auto translate photographs into line drawings when they're asked for, then clear the cache at the end of the day to cover one's tracks. OK, I've said too much already, please delete this message.
:-)
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/6/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Though a project to replace all the photographs on Wikipedia with drawings *would* be entertaining.
If a little short notice for this year's April Fools' :)
A little tinkering with the image-crunching pipeline could auto translate photographs into line drawings when they're asked for, then clear the cache at the end of the day to cover one's tracks. OK, I've said too much already, please delete this message.
How about the software Apple use for their iPod/iTunes ads? :)
On 03/03/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
You're confusing "verified" and "verifiable". All Wikipedia requires is that information actually has been published or is otherwise verifiable. We don't do fact checking, per se.
Well, we do do the fact checking, as far as we can: it would seem negligent not to. However, it might be useful to have "verifiable is quite different from verified" displayed somewhere appropriate. It seems that sometimes the policy can be taken as implying that the 'weight of evidence' lies with the defence — guilty until proven innocent. However, the requirement is not to make claims that are unverifiable, and to be clear how any claims can be verified. The population of a Malawian town, for instance, may not be verifiable on the web, but it is verifiable. We also have to consider that easily accessible sources may be misleading — a website's claims about that Malawian town may be based on the memoirs of a nineteenth century European visitor, whereas a local Chichewa newspaper (unintelligible to most Wikipedians) may have accurate information. In a lot of articles, the English website may not be the best source, simply the most accessible. I would hate to see information removed because it isn't verified yet is verifiable, or because its verifiability is inaccessible to monoglot English-speakers tied to their computer screens.
I suggest you do the same thing you would do if an elder of Crestone, Colorado writes an article on his village, which I have done. Use common sense and leave it alone unless you can add something to it.
Fred
On Mar 2, 2006, at 8:26 AM, Nicholas Moreau wrote:
Africa was brought up in discussion of verifiability. This raises an important question, should/can we be lax references for African content in en?
Suppose a tribes' elder writes an article on his village, he'll do it based on oral history, or one-off documents. This information may be recorded in books, but these books are stashed away in libraries miles upon miles away.
What happens then? It's true information, but there's little or no available sources for the writer to cite.
Nick/Zanimum
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Nicholas Moreau wrote:
Africa was brought up in discussion of verifiability. This raises an important question, should/can we be lax references for African content in en?
Suppose a tribes' elder writes an article on his village, he'll do it based on oral history, or one-off documents. This information may be recorded in books, but these books are stashed away in libraries miles upon miles away.
We're nowhere near that level of detail on Africa however. Check out the "Historical Dictionary" series of books on African countries - typically we have just 3-4% coverage of the topics listed in each of those, and the dictionaries include bibliographies listing another thousand or more works. We have many years of effort ahead just working from what's already in print, and already sitting in the average university library.
(A sobering exercise actually - go into university library, pick a book completely at random, see if we have articles adequately covering the subjects in the book. We're missing a lot of stuff...)
Stan
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Nicholas Moreau wrote:
Africa was brought up in discussion of verifiability. This raises an important question, should/can we be lax references for African content in en?
Suppose a tribes' elder writes an article on his village, he'll do it based on oral history, or one-off documents. This information may be recorded in books, but these books are stashed away in libraries miles upon miles away.
What happens then? It's true information, but there's little or no available sources for the writer to cite.
Welcome to my challenge: writing articles about Ethiopia (& neighboring countries) where I can provide adequate sources. The short report on this challenge is that sometimes I'm successful, & sometimes I'm not; compared to a number of other topics one could write about for Wikipedia, verification is currently harder, & for the forseeable future will likely remain so.
The longer report on this challenge is as follows. The problem of "oral history" isn't as insurmountable as it might first appear: a large number of field researchers spent the 20th century combing Africa & recording oral historical traditions, so a lot of material that one might expect to find in an encyclopedia is in print, & can be verified. Getting ahold of the printed accounts might pose a challenge of one kind or another: for example, I own a copy of Richard Pankhurst's quite informative _Economic History of Ethiopia_ (which covers the years 1800-1935), but it had a first printing of 4,000 copies, so I don't know if someone else could easily verify any material I might draw from it. But that is a problem with every specialized discipline. (Anyone else on the list own a copy of _Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament_? It's another valuable work, but not one found in the average public library.)
And much of the information that does reach Wikipedia about Ethiopian history from that land appears to be reliable, when evaluated with common sense. For example, there's an editor Sendeq with whom I don't always agree & only rarely provides references for his material, but I have come to trust his contributions. On the other hand, a number of clan & ethnic rivalries are fought on Wikipedia from anonymous accounts with IP numbers, & are best dealt with as if vandalism.
The problem I'm facing at the moment with Ethiopian articles is that last November Meles Zenawi closed down the media in his country, following riots over the election results. (There's some disagreement over who started these riots: whether it the opposition parties who called for demonstrations or the police who were told to "keep order".) As a result, I'm finding that if I want to write adequately detailed articles, I'm faced with using unacceptible sources -- namely Weblogs & web forums. For every event that a reputable source like the BBC publishes, there are about 5 more that I end up learning about in other ways.
And conditions in Ethiopia are relatively peaceful compared to the rest of the continent. For some countries we have no reliable information because the people who might provide reports either can't get to the scene -- or are killed in the violence. Civil wars don't usually recognize neutral observers.
I don't know the answer to this problem, whether to ask for an exception in this case (& risk garbage being submitted because of this), or to simply not write about what I learn. It is a problem worth discussing, although I think few of the Wikipedians who struggle with this problem post or read the mailling list.
Geoff
On 3/2/06, Geoffrey Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
The problem I'm facing at the moment with Ethiopian articles is that last November Meles Zenawi closed down the media in his country, following riots over the election results. (There's some disagreement over who started these riots: whether it the opposition parties who called for demonstrations or the police who were told to "keep order".) As a result, I'm finding that if I want to write adequately detailed articles, I'm faced with using unacceptible sources -- namely Weblogs & web forums. For every event that a reputable source like the BBC publishes, there are about 5 more that I end up learning about in other ways.
Just so you know, I'm an editor that thinks taht weblogs and web forums are acceptable sources.
I think providing a source is a lot more important than trying to ensure its reliability--let the reader provide their own determination of the weight to give to the source.
I trust readers more than I trust journalists, frankly.
On 3/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Just so you know, I'm an editor that thinks taht weblogs and web forums are acceptable sources.
I think providing a source is a lot more important than trying to ensure its reliability--let the reader provide their own determination of the weight to give to the source.
I trust readers more than I trust journalists, frankly.
That's an excellent point. Since we're providing the source, and since weblogs are typically easily accessible, doesn't a rule against weblogs fly in the face of "Wikipedia does not strive for truth, but verifiability"? Sure, if you had even better sources, you might not want to clog your article up with stuff drawn from weblogs...but if you're directly quoting from a blog, where's the problem?
Steve
On 3/3/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Just so you know, I'm an editor that thinks taht weblogs and web forums are acceptable sources.
I think providing a source is a lot more important than trying to ensure its reliability--let the reader provide their own determination of the weight to give to the source.
I trust readers more than I trust journalists, frankly.
That's an excellent point. Since we're providing the source, and since weblogs are typically easily accessible, doesn't a rule against weblogs fly in the face of "Wikipedia does not strive for truth, but verifiability"? Sure, if you had even better sources, you might not want to clog your article up with stuff drawn from weblogs...but if you're directly quoting from a blog, where's the problem?
The problem is something of a slippery slope one -- i.e. whereas newspapers etc. are extremely controlled, blogs are extremely uncontrolled, and both lack for accountability and reliability for different reasons. But at least we have a historical understanding of the fallibility of traditional media, and fewer people understand the strengths and weaknesses of blogs/websites/electronic-only media.
But a lot of the bias against blogs is, in my opinion, simply the classic problem of trying to make Wikipedia resemble traditional encyclopedias. People forget that Wiki is not paper.
On 3/3/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is something of a slippery slope one -- i.e. whereas newspapers etc. are extremely controlled, blogs are extremely uncontrolled, and both lack for accountability and reliability for different reasons. But at least we have a historical understanding of the fallibility of traditional media, and fewer people understand the strengths and weaknesses of blogs/websites/electronic-only media.
Indeed. However, any study of newspapers soon shows they are able to publish, at times, utter tripe, devoid of an ounce of accuracy. While on the other hand there are some blogs that are extremely accurate and prime sources in their particular field.
The one advantage newspapers have here is that, being hardcopy, it's easier to be sure that the one you're reading is the same one the original author read and used as a source. Most blogs, like most websites, have little sense of history - articles are revised with little or no notation to inform the reader, and often older, pre-revision versions are inaccessible.
Also, most newspapers have been around for long enough that their likelihood for bias and inaccuracy is well understood, and the relative rankings of newspapers are reasonably well known. Most people in the United States know well enough to trust the New York Times over the New York Post, for instance, and both over the National Enquirer - and most realise that all three could be wrong.
But a lot of the bias against blogs is, in my opinion, simply the classic problem of trying to make Wikipedia resemble traditional encyclopedias. People forget that Wiki is not paper.
People forget that Wiki is not paper in the less obvious ways.
-Matt
Geoffrey Burling wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Nicholas Moreau wrote:
Africa was brought up in discussion of verifiability. This raises an important question, should/can we be lax references for African content in en?
Suppose a tribes' elder writes an article on his village, he'll do it based on oral history, or one-off documents. This information may be recorded in books, but these books are stashed away in libraries miles upon miles away.
What happens then? It's true information, but there's little or no available sources for the writer to cite.
Welcome to my challenge: writing articles about Ethiopia (& neighboring countries) where I can provide adequate sources. The short report on this challenge is that sometimes I'm successful, & sometimes I'm not; compared to a number of other topics one could write about for Wikipedia, verification is currently harder, & for the forseeable future will likely remain so.
Oral histories have a role to play. In Canada the Supreme Court has in the past given credence to oral histories in establishing land claims of the First Nations of British Columbia.
The longer report on this challenge is as follows. The problem of "oral history" isn't as insurmountable as it might first appear: a large number of field researchers spent the 20th century combing Africa & recording oral historical traditions, so a lot of material that one might expect to find in an encyclopedia is in print, & can be verified. Getting ahold of the printed accounts might pose a challenge of one kind or another: for example, I own a copy of Richard Pankhurst's quite informative _Economic History of Ethiopia_ (which covers the years 1800-1935), but it had a first printing of 4,000 copies, so I don't know if someone else could easily verify any material I might draw from it.
Hmmm! Published in Addis Abeba in 1968. (not exactly the best place to publish if you want high circulation. :-) ) 4 copies available through Abebooks, with the cheapest at US$59.37. The pre-1800 volume was published in London and can be had for $14.31
But that is a problem with every specialized discipline. (Anyone else on the list own a copy of _Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament_? It's another valuable work, but not one found in the average public library.)
32 copies available through Abebooks with the cheapest being for US$75.00
The point for me is that these are easy to track down, and I'm confident that I could verify the material if I took an interest in the subject.
Ec
I'm sure an anthropologist would be very interested in this. We, however, are writing an encyclopedia, not compiling an oral history of the world. There are enough areas of human knowledge that we don't have sufficiently covered that fall under the scope of our quixotic mission without creating all new categories of things to accomplish.
On 3/2/06, Nicholas Moreau beaubeaver@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Suppose a tribes' elder writes an article on his village, he'll do it based on oral history, or one-off documents. This information may be recorded in books, but these books are stashed away in libraries miles upon miles away.
This kind of stuff is actually a big concern within studies about the writing of history (historiography) and the philosophy and sociology of science -- what kinds of sources become part of "the archive", what sorts of systemic biases are imposed by certain "standards of rigor", how demarcation boundaries are really ways of imposing certain "regimes of truth", and so forth.
In the end, though, being "an encyclopedia" already probably commits us to certain epistemological programs over others. We can try to lessen that where possible -- orals sources, can, for example, be transcribed -- and try not to flaunt our biases, but we should not feel unimpeded to draw the line somewhere.
The philosopher Paul Feyerabend was known for arguing that the scientific method, as a method, was by definitive restrictive to what sorts of knowledge could be integrated into the scientific corpus. He was right, but I think he erred when he implied that this was not, in fact, the entire point of having a scientific method: it's a necessarily non-holistic form of knowledge, but it is reliable form of knowledge. You trade away some of your possibilities, but you get reliability and robustness in return.
I think it is an apt analogy in this case as well. A verfiability policy of our sort might lose the elders, but it keeps what we do include clean.
FF
On 3/2/06, Nicholas Moreau beaubeaver@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Africa was brought up in discussion of verifiability. This raises an important question, should/can we be lax references for African content in en?
Suppose a tribes' elder writes an article on his village, he'll do it based on oral history, or one-off documents. This information may be recorded in books, but these books are stashed away in libraries miles upon miles away.
What happens then? It's true information, but there's little or no available sources for the writer to cite.
Nick/Zanimum
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually it keeps what you do dirty and unreliable. We have an article, "Damned knowledge" which partially addresses this question. Political and ethnic considerations should play a minimum role is what is considered knowledge. That is one reason I defended User:Deeceevoice so strongly (although she undoubtedly considers me her worst enemy). I continue to maintain that should a village elder (or high school student) in Africa manage somehow to get on-line and write an article about their village we should be happy to have the input. Consider our article about Bonanza, Colorado, a decrepit collection of shacks in a barren gully in Colorado, who if you would believe Wikipedia, has an per capita income of $66,857. If I should add information from my personal knowledge that the reason for this astounding statistic is that one of the fourteen souls who was counted in the 2000 census has a nice income, but while he does not live in the town, other than brief periods in the summer, maintains his legal residence there so that he and his friends can vote there, in one of the tiniest incorporated towns in the United States, I would be adding unverified information. If I went further and speculated that the reason for the struggle for control of the town government was related to hopes regarding legalized gambling, I might be even further out of line. Yes, the line must be drawn somewhere, but an image of this desolate wasteland might prove very illuminating, despite being very much original research.
Fred
On Mar 2, 2006, at 9:11 PM, Fastfission wrote:
The philosopher Paul Feyerabend was known for arguing that the scientific method, as a method, was by definitive restrictive to what sorts of knowledge could be integrated into the scientific corpus. He was right, but I think he erred when he implied that this was not, in fact, the entire point of having a scientific method: it's a necessarily non-holistic form of knowledge, but it is reliable form of knowledge. You trade away some of your possibilities, but you get reliability and robustness in return.
I think it is an apt analogy in this case as well. A verfiability policy of our sort might lose the elders, but it keeps what we do include clean.
FF
"Fastfission" wrote
This kind of stuff is actually a big concern within studies about the writing of history (historiography) and the philosophy and sociology of science -- what kinds of sources become part of "the archive", what sorts of systemic biases are imposed by certain "standards of rigor", how demarcation boundaries are really ways of imposing certain "regimes of truth", and so forth.
I made this sort of point a while back. Yes, there's a tension between being hardcore about verifiability, and the wish to eliminate systemic bias. I would rather reach out, try to fix up the systemic issues, and fuss about sources later. I'm not exactly happy about the subtexts, like 'verifiability means anglophone sources', which do come up (e.g. the Rajput case on the ArbCom).
We still need 'be bold!', in fact. Consider that there are legal problems; but that they are likely to come from the rich. We should certainly be tougher on articles about living Americans than for living Liberians, for example.
Charles
Interesting example popped up yesterday. An article I had written early on got tagged by Can't sleep with {{cleanup-verify}} last night. If I would have written the article now is another issue, but it seemed like a good idea a year ago (and I still think it meets the notability standard).
So here's the problem. I wrote the article about someone I know in real life - not so close that I think I shouldn't be writing about him, but close enough that my information about him came primarily from him talking about himself. It's fairly easy to verify that he holds the position that he does by looking at the web site of the organisation he works for. But is it really appropriate to reference a page that says " For more information on a specific item or on how to make a gift to the Centre from our "Wish List" please call or email [the person] the Centre's CEO and Conservation Manager" to support that he is the conservation manager and CEO? The organisation's web site refers to him all over the place, other publications also refer to him and state his job title - but all of them mention him in passing, much like the above quote.
That said, there's material in the article which I cannot source at this point in time, although it is verifiable, and then there was information which is unverifiable because it refers to hearsay about back-channel negotiations within government. Given that I have the information from more than one source who was in a position to know, I don't doubt the truth of the statement, but it's obviously unverifiable hearsay and OR, so it had to go
On 3/3/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Fastfission" wrote
This kind of stuff is actually a big concern within studies about the writing of history (historiography) and the philosophy and sociology of science -- what kinds of sources become part of "the archive", what sorts of systemic biases are imposed by certain "standards of rigor", how demarcation boundaries are really ways of imposing certain "regimes of truth", and so forth.
I made this sort of point a while back. Yes, there's a tension between being hardcore about verifiability, and the wish to eliminate systemic bias. I would rather reach out, try to fix up the systemic issues, and fuss about sources later. I'm not exactly happy about the subtexts, like 'verifiability means anglophone sources', which do come up (e.g. the Rajput case on the ArbCom).
We still need 'be bold!', in fact. Consider that there are legal problems; but that they are likely to come from the rich. We should certainly be tougher on articles about living Americans than for living Liberians, for example.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sometimes when I'm really really exhausted and tired of dealing with copyright battles, AfD battles, userbox wars, and everything else, I wonder if we've lost our way.
And then... I see post like this one from Fastfission and Nicholas Moreau realize that no, we're very noisy and silly sometimes, but we are far from losing our way.
This is exactly the kind of conversation and dialogue that makes Wikipedia great. :)
Fastfission wrote:
This kind of stuff is actually a big concern within studies about the writing of history (historiography) and the philosophy and sociology of science -- what kinds of sources become part of "the archive", what sorts of systemic biases are imposed by certain "standards of rigor", how demarcation boundaries are really ways of imposing certain "regimes of truth", and so forth.
In the end, though, being "an encyclopedia" already probably commits us to certain epistemological programs over others. We can try to lessen that where possible -- orals sources, can, for example, be transcribed -- and try not to flaunt our biases, but we should not feel unimpeded to draw the line somewhere.
The philosopher Paul Feyerabend was known for arguing that the scientific method, as a method, was by definitive restrictive to what sorts of knowledge could be integrated into the scientific corpus. He was right, but I think he erred when he implied that this was not, in fact, the entire point of having a scientific method: it's a necessarily non-holistic form of knowledge, but it is reliable form of knowledge. You trade away some of your possibilities, but you get reliability and robustness in return.
I think it is an apt analogy in this case as well. A verfiability policy of our sort might lose the elders, but it keeps what we do include clean.
FF
On 3/2/06, Nicholas Moreau beaubeaver@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Africa was brought up in discussion of verifiability. This raises an important question, should/can we be lax references for African content in en?
Suppose a tribes' elder writes an article on his village, he'll do it based on oral history, or one-off documents. This information may be recorded in books, but these books are stashed away in libraries miles upon miles away.
What happens then? It's true information, but there's little or no available sources for the writer to cite.
Nick/Zanimum
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l