On 5/26/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
When we choose to publish facts on private people versus public people, for example, is a judgment call about how "notable" they are---not anything to do with verifiability, as many private/non-notable people have information about them verifiable from e.g. phone books.
Actually, I'd dispute that a phone book is a reliable source. It's pretty easy to get fake information into a phone book. Also I'd say there usually isn't enough information in a phone book to uniquely identify a person anyway.
I'd go so far as to say phone books are completely excludable as Wikipedia sources, regardless of whether the information is on a public or private person, famous or average, "notable" or "non-notable".
Anthony
Celebrities move. Phone books get outdated. Besides, there's more people with the same last name. A phone book is a bad source when you want the address for a specific person. All it gives is the last name.
Mgm
On 5/27/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/26/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
When we choose to publish facts on private people versus public people, for example, is a judgment call about how "notable" they are---not anything to do with verifiability, as many private/non-notable people have information about them verifiable from e.g. phone books.
Actually, I'd dispute that a phone book is a reliable source. It's pretty easy to get fake information into a phone book. Also I'd say there usually isn't enough information in a phone book to uniquely identify a person anyway.
I'd go so far as to say phone books are completely excludable as Wikipedia sources, regardless of whether the information is on a public or private person, famous or average, "notable" or "non-notable".
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/26/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
When we choose to publish facts on private people versus public people, for example, is a judgment call about how "notable" they are---not anything to do with verifiability, as many private/non-notable people have information about them verifiable from e.g. phone books.
Actually, I'd dispute that a phone book is a reliable source. It's pretty easy to get fake information into a phone book. Also I'd say there usually isn't enough information in a phone book to uniquely identify a person anyway.
I'd go so far as to say phone books are completely excludable as Wikipedia sources, regardless of whether the information is on a public or private person, famous or average, "notable" or "non-notable".
While I acknowledge that most phone book information has very limited value, but it is easy to imagine situations where that would not be the case.
Ec
I would be interested to see how a phonebook would be used as a source.
On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/26/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
When we choose to publish facts on private people versus public people, for example, is a judgment call about how "notable" they are---not anything to do with verifiability, as many private/non-notable people have information about them verifiable from e.g. phone books.
Actually, I'd dispute that a phone book is a reliable source. It's pretty easy to get fake information into a phone book. Also I'd say there usually isn't enough information in a phone book to uniquely identify a person anyway.
I'd go so far as to say phone books are completely excludable as Wikipedia sources, regardless of whether the information is on a public or private person, famous or average, "notable" or "non-notable".
While I acknowledge that most phone book information has very limited value, but it is easy to imagine situations where that would not be the case.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/29/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I would be interested to see how a phonebook would be used as a source.
"According to the 2005/06 edition of Los Angeles phonebook bla bla, Madonna lives at Hollywood street blah blah and has the phone number 555-xyz"
easy
The surname "Ng" is one of the most common in Melbourne, spanning 47 pages of the 2006 phone book...
Steve
On 5/29/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I would be interested to see how a phonebook would be used as a source.
On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/26/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
When we choose to publish facts on private people versus public people, for example, is a judgment call about how "notable" they are---not anything to do with verifiability, as many private/non-notable people have information about them verifiable from e.g. phone books.
Actually, I'd dispute that a phone book is a reliable source. It's pretty easy to get fake information into a phone book. Also I'd say there usually isn't enough information in a phone book to uniquely identify a person anyway.
I'd go so far as to say phone books are completely excludable as Wikipedia sources, regardless of whether the information is on a public or private person, famous or average, "notable" or "non-notable".
While I acknowledge that most phone book information has very limited value, but it is easy to imagine situations where that would not be the case.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- 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
That was a good one! If that's what Delirium was talking about, I guess that's OK. But I disagree that we should be using phone books as sources for individual people, famous or not.
Anthony
On 5/29/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The surname "Ng" is one of the most common in Melbourne, spanning 47 pages of the 2006 phone book...
Steve
On 5/29/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I would be interested to see how a phonebook would be used as a source.
Heh, fwiw I think "ng" *is* one of the most common in Melbourne, no idea how many pages it spans though. My own surname was around 20 pages last time I checked (a long time ago).
Steve
On 5/29/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
That was a good one! If that's what Delirium was talking about, I guess that's OK. But I disagree that we should be using phone books as sources for individual people, famous or not.
On 5/29/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The surname "Ng" is one of the most common in Melbourne, spanning 47 pages of the 2006 phone book...
That's a great example of a non sequitur. It's usefulness won't be established by choosing one of the most common names as a straw man. Once you've established that a person lived at a particular address his continuing appearance in the phone books for a 15 year period is evidence that he may have lived there for that 15 years. Whether any information source will be useful depends on what we are trying to do with it. Why dismiss it prematurely?
Ec
Steve Bennett wrote:
The surname "Ng" is one of the most common in Melbourne, spanning 47 pages of the 2006 phone book...
Steve
On 5/29/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I would be interested to see how a phonebook would be used as a source.
On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/26/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
When we choose to publish facts on private people versus public people, for example, is a judgment call about how "notable" they are---not anything to do with verifiability, as many private/non-notable people have information about them verifiable from e.g. phone books.
Actually, I'd dispute that a phone book is a reliable source. It's pretty easy to get fake information into a phone book. Also I'd say there usually isn't enough information in a phone book to uniquely identify a person anyway.
I'd go so far as to say phone books are completely excludable as Wikipedia sources, regardless of whether the information is on a public or private person, famous or average, "notable" or "non-notable".
While I acknowledge that most phone book information has very limited value, it is easy to imagine situations where that would not be the case.
On 5/30/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That's a great example of a non sequitur. It's usefulness won't be established by choosing one of the most common names as a straw man. Once you've established that a person lived at a particular address his continuing appearance in the phone books for a 15 year period is evidence that he may have lived there for that 15 years. Whether any information source will be useful depends on what we are trying to do with it. Why dismiss it prematurely?
What did I do to deserve having the word "straw man" thrown at me?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/30/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That's a great example of a non sequitur. It's usefulness won't be established by choosing one of the most common names as a straw man. Once you've established that a person lived at a particular address his continuing appearance in the phone books for a 15 year period is evidence that he may have lived there for that 15 years. Whether any information source will be useful depends on what we are trying to do with it. Why dismiss it prematurely?
What did I do to deserve having the word "straw man" thrown at me?
You extrapolated the frequency of the name "Ng" in the Melbourne directory as an argument to prove the much broader hypothesis that phone books are not valid sources. That name was the straw man. Choosing a much rarer name may have resulted in the quite different conclusion that a phone book is _sometimes_ a valid source. If among all those Ngs there is only one Egg Foo Ng it might still be useful there. And we haven't even mentioned the usefulness of the yellow pages in establishing the existence of a business over a time frame.
Ec
On 5/30/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
You extrapolated the frequency of the name "Ng" in the Melbourne directory as an argument to prove the much broader hypothesis that phone books are not valid sources. That name was the straw man. Choosing a much rarer name may have resulted in the quite different conclusion that a phone book is _sometimes_ a valid source. If among all those Ngs there is only one Egg Foo Ng it might still be useful there. And we haven't even mentioned the usefulness of the yellow pages in establishing the existence of a business over a time frame.
I did what?
I was asked for an example of a phone book being a reliable source for a claim.
I gave one.
Now you're just being nasty.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/30/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
You extrapolated the frequency of the name "Ng" in the Melbourne directory as an argument to prove the much broader hypothesis that phone books are not valid sources. That name was the straw man. Choosing a much rarer name may have resulted in the quite different conclusion that a phone book is _sometimes_ a valid source. If among all those Ngs there is only one Egg Foo Ng it might still be useful there. And we haven't even mentioned the usefulness of the yellow pages in establishing the existence of a business over a time frame.
I did what?
I was asked for an example of a phone book being a reliable source for a claim.
I gave one.
Now you're just being nasty.
Huh???? What's nasty about it? Why should it seem nasty to point out an apparent error in logic? There was absolutely nothing personal in that.
It did strike me that your example was designed to show exactly the opposite of what you now claim. This would certainly seem the effect of citing that there are so many Ngs in the Melbourne phone book.
Ec
On 5/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Huh???? What's nasty about it?
I really take exception to the phrase "straw man".
Why should it seem nasty to point out an apparent error in logic? There was absolutely nothing personal in that.
It did strike me that your example was designed to show exactly the opposite of what you now claim. This would certainly seem the effect of citing that there are so many Ngs in the Melbourne phone book.
Original request:
I would be interested to see how a phonebook would be used as a source.
My reply:
The surname "Ng" is one of the most common in Melbourne, spanning 47 pages of the 2006 phone book...
What "I now claim":
I was asked for an example of a phone book being a reliable source for a claim.
???
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Huh???? What's nasty about it?
I really take exception to the phrase "straw man".
I suppose you're entitled to draw your own inferences from [[Straw man]]. Nastiness is in the eye of the beholder.
Why should it seem nasty to point out an apparent error in logic? There was absolutely nothing personal in that.
It did strike me that your example was designed to show exactly the opposite of what you now claim. This would certainly seem the effect of citing that there are so many Ngs in the Melbourne phone book.
Original request:
I would be interested to see how a phonebook would be used as a source.
My reply:
The surname "Ng" is one of the most common in Melbourne, spanning 47 pages of the 2006 phone book...
What "I now claim":
I was asked for an example of a phone book being a reliable source for a claim.
???
Whether something is a source for a claim probably requires that a claim be there in the first place, and it would then seem that your claim is nothing more than "There are a lot of Ngs in Melbourne." The long listing in the directory proves this; therefore, the phone book is useful.
The other possible interpretation is that there are so many Ngs in the phone book that it becomes useless for finding anybody.
Ec
On 5/30/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
You extrapolated the frequency of the name "Ng" in the Melbourne directory as an argument to prove the much broader hypothesis that phone books are not valid sources.
As he explained, that's not at all what he was doing. He was giving an example of when a phone book can be a valid source. A very insightful example, at that, and one which I conceded disproved my suggestion that phone books were never valid sources.
If among all those Ngs there is only one Egg Foo Ng it might still be useful there.
I don't see how. Just because there is only Egg Foo Ng in the phone book still doesn't mean that there is only one Egg Foo Ng in the area served by that phone book. I just don't see how such information can be useful, especially considering how easy it is to put false information into a phone book (in my experience there is generally no verification of the names at all).
And we haven't even mentioned the usefulness of the yellow pages in establishing the existence of a business over a time frame.
It's even easier to put false information into the yellow pages section.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/30/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If among all those Ngs there is only one Egg Foo Ng it might still be useful there.
I don't see how. Just because there is only Egg Foo Ng in the phone book still doesn't mean that there is only one Egg Foo Ng in the area served by that phone book. I just don't see how such information can be useful, especially considering how easy it is to put false information into a phone book (in my experience there is generally no verification of the names at all).
People can indeed put false information into phone books, and into many other publications. Most don't. Assume good faith is as important for reading phone books as for reading Wikipedia edits. It also happens that widows leave the phone listing in their husband's name long after his death. The average person wants the phone book information to be correct. That's how people find him. The value of a phone book when used as a sole source of information is limited, but it can be very helpful when used in conjunction with other references. It is poor research to prejudicially dismiss any source.
And we haven't even mentioned the usefulness of the yellow pages in establishing the existence of a business over a time frame.
It's even easier to put false information into the yellow pages section.
So? That doesn't mean that every entry has false information.
Ec
On 5/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/30/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If among all those Ngs there is only one Egg Foo Ng it might still be useful there.
I don't see how. Just because there is only Egg Foo Ng in the phone book still doesn't mean that there is only one Egg Foo Ng in the area served by that phone book. I just don't see how such information can be useful, especially considering how easy it is to put false information into a phone book (in my experience there is generally no verification of the names at all).
People can indeed put false information into phone books, and into many other publications. Most don't. Assume good faith is as important for reading phone books as for reading Wikipedia edits. It also happens that widows leave the phone listing in their husband's name long after his death. The average person wants the phone book information to be correct. That's how people find him. The value of a phone book when used as a sole source of information is limited, but it can be very helpful when used in conjunction with other references. It is poor research to prejudicially dismiss any source.
And we haven't even mentioned the usefulness of the yellow pages in establishing the existence of a business over a time frame.
It's even easier to put false information into the yellow pages section.
So? That doesn't mean that every entry has false information.
No, it doesn't. However, it does mean that a phone book isn't a *reliable* source.
On 6/1/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, it doesn't. However, it does mean that a phone book isn't a *reliable* source.
I don't think it's ever been stated that Wikipedia only incorporates material from known, infallible sources. Our minimum requirements are much more vague however - words like "reliable" and "verifiable" get used a lot, but with no clear definition.
Given that, providing the source of all information and taking steps not to ridiculously misuse sources (eg, quoting speculative material from a tabloid and presenting it as established fact), is what we should be aiming for. So far, we're not even close.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/1/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, it doesn't. However, it does mean that a phone book isn't a *reliable* source.
I don't think it's ever been stated that Wikipedia only incorporates material from known, infallible sources. Our minimum requirements are much more vague however - words like "reliable" and "verifiable" get used a lot, but with no clear definition.
Given that, providing the source of all information and taking steps not to ridiculously misuse sources (eg, quoting speculative material from a tabloid and presenting it as established fact), is what we should be aiming for. So far, we're not even close.
I essentially agree. Some people still argue that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. On the other hand "Scientific American" for this month used [[Sudoku]] as a reference in an article on the same subject.
Diferent sources will have different levels of reliability for different types of information. It's ultimately up to the user to exercise critical thinking in making such evaluations, not us.
Ec
On 6/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I essentially agree. Some people still argue that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. On the other hand "Scientific American" for this month used [[Sudoku]] as a reference in an article on the same subject.
A good example - it depends how you use Wikipedia whether you would call it a "reliable source". If it makes a definitive, unsourced claim, I would not call it reliable. If it provides the source further upstream, and you check them out, it's a very useful source.
Diferent sources will have different levels of reliability for different types of information. It's ultimately up to the user to exercise critical thinking in making such evaluations, not us.
Yep.
Steve
On 6/2/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I essentially agree. Some people still argue that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. On the other hand "Scientific American" for this month used [[Sudoku]] as a reference in an article on the same subject.
A good example - it depends how you use Wikipedia whether you would call it a "reliable source". If it makes a definitive, unsourced claim, I would not call it reliable. If it provides the source further upstream, and you check them out, it's a very useful source.
If you're checking the source "further upstream", you should be citing the original source, not the encyclopedia article.
Anthony
On 6/2/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/2/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I essentially agree. Some people still argue that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. On the other hand "Scientific American" for this month used [[Sudoku]] as a reference in an article on the same subject.
A good example - it depends how you use Wikipedia whether you would call it a "reliable source". If it makes a definitive, unsourced claim, I would not call it reliable. If it provides the source further upstream, and you check them out, it's a very useful source.
If you're checking the source "further upstream", you should be citing the original source, not the encyclopedia article.
I just looked at the new Scientific American (ah, the advantages of working in a library) and skimmed the article. I may have missed it but I don't see any instances of the author citing Wikipedia as a source. The article does include a link to Wikipedia under a list of "More to Explore" weblinks, which seems an entirely proper use.
Rob wrote:
On 6/2/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/2/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I essentially agree. Some people still argue that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. On the other hand "Scientific American" for this month used [[Sudoku]] as a reference in an article on the same subject.
A good example - it depends how you use Wikipedia whether you would call it a "reliable source". If it makes a definitive, unsourced claim, I would not call it reliable. If it provides the source further upstream, and you check them out, it's a very useful source.
If you're checking the source "further upstream", you should be citing the original source, not the encyclopedia article.
I just looked at the new Scientific American (ah, the advantages of working in a library) and skimmed the article. I may have missed it but I don't see any instances of the author citing Wikipedia as a source. The article does include a link to Wikipedia under a list of "More to Explore" weblinks, which seems an entirely proper use.
This all depends on how rigidly you look at the term "source". Scientific American does not typically have a lot of footnotes, but it does give opportunities such as this for further exploration. Are you saying that this makes the magazine less credible?
Ec
On 6/4/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I just looked at the new Scientific American (ah, the advantages of working in a library) and skimmed the article. I may have missed it but I don't see any instances of the author citing Wikipedia as a source. The article does include a link to Wikipedia under a list of "More to Explore" weblinks, which seems an entirely proper use.
This all depends on how rigidly you look at the term "source". Scientific American does not typically have a lot of footnotes, but it does give opportunities such as this for further exploration. Are you saying that this makes the magazine less credible?
Please don't put words in my mouth.
On 6/4/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This all depends on how rigidly you look at the term "source". Scientific American does not typically have a lot of footnotes, but it does give opportunities such as this for further exploration. Are you saying that this makes the magazine less credible?
Ec
Scientific American generally gives far more references than most other science magazines I can think of (Discover is generally on or below SA's par, and Science News is definitely way below)
~maru
maru dubshinki wrote:
On 6/4/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This all depends on how rigidly you look at the term "source". Scientific American does not typically have a lot of footnotes, but it does give opportunities such as this for further exploration. Are you saying that this makes the magazine less credible?
Scientific American generally gives far more references than most other science magazines I can think of (Discover is generally on or below SA's par, and Science News is definitely way below)
I only occasionally pick up Discover, but I noticed that about the last one that I got. Of course, no one's mentioning Popular Science. :-) It has progressed a long way downhill since its early days in the 19th century when it had some very interesting feature articles. In that same period Scientific American was a weekly which put great emphasis on the material that was going through the US Patent Office.
Ec
On 6/2/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
If you're checking the source "further upstream", you should be citing the original source, not the encyclopedia article.
You should cite both.
Steve
On 6/2/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
If you're checking the source "further upstream", you should be citing the original source, not the encyclopedia article.
You should cite both.
Why?
On 6/3/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/2/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
If you're checking the source "further upstream", you should be citing the original source, not the encyclopedia article.
You should cite both.
Why?
I realised after I sent this that I had misread. If you're checking the source, then you're right, you probably don't need to cite Wikipedia, though it may be polite to do so.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/3/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/2/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
If you're checking the source "further upstream", you should be citing the original source, not the encyclopedia article.
You should cite both.
Why?
I realised after I sent this that I had misread. If you're checking the source, then you're right, you probably don't need to cite Wikipedia, though it may be polite to do so.
That, and the fact the the encyclopedic filter could give an entirely different perspective on the subject.
Ec
On 6/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/1/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, it doesn't. However, it does mean that a phone book isn't a *reliable* source.
I don't think it's ever been stated that Wikipedia only incorporates material from known, infallible sources. Our minimum requirements are much more vague however - words like "reliable" and "verifiable" get used a lot, but with no clear definition.
Given that, providing the source of all information and taking steps not to ridiculously misuse sources (eg, quoting speculative material from a tabloid and presenting it as established fact), is what we should be aiming for. So far, we're not even close.
I essentially agree. Some people still argue that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. On the other hand "Scientific American" for this month used [[Sudoku]] as a reference in an article on the same subject.
Wikipedia *isn't* a reliable source. I certainly don't think it should be used as a reference in another encyclopedia article.
Unless Scientific American was using the Wikipedia article for a trivial piece of information which is already obvious, I think they made a big mistake. Even Jimbo has said that Wikipedia shouldn't be used, for instance, as a reference in an academic paper.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/1/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, it doesn't. However, it does mean that a phone book isn't a *reliable* source.
I don't think it's ever been stated that Wikipedia only incorporates material from known, infallible sources. Our minimum requirements are much more vague however - words like "reliable" and "verifiable" get used a lot, but with no clear definition.
Given that, providing the source of all information and taking steps not to ridiculously misuse sources (eg, quoting speculative material
from a tabloid and presenting it as established fact), is what we
should be aiming for. So far, we're not even close.
I essentially agree. Some people still argue that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. On the other hand "Scientific American" for this month used [[Sudoku]] as a reference in an article on the same subject.
Wikipedia *isn't* a reliable source. I certainly don't think it should be used as a reference in another encyclopedia article.
Unless Scientific American was using the Wikipedia article for a trivial piece of information which is already obvious, I think they made a big mistake. Even Jimbo has said that Wikipedia shouldn't be used, for instance, as a reference in an academic paper.
It's not Jimbo's call. It's up to the editorial staff of the magazine that is considering use of the Wikipedia material. We use references to the 1911 Britannica. They may be out of date, but for some subjects they are as accurate as anything else.
Ec
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
And we haven't even mentioned the usefulness of the yellow pages in establishing the existence of a business over a time frame.
It's even easier to put false information into the yellow pages section.
So? That doesn't mean that every entry has false information.
No, it doesn't. However, it does mean that a phone book isn't a *reliable* source.
That conclusion is not logical..If you are going to be imposing such strict criteria on one kinde of publication you should be applying these criteria to them all. Very few publications would pass your test of reliability.
Ec
On 6/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
And we haven't even mentioned the usefulness of the yellow pages in establishing the existence of a business over a time frame.
It's even easier to put false information into the yellow pages section.
So? That doesn't mean that every entry has false information.
No, it doesn't. However, it does mean that a phone book isn't a *reliable* source.
That conclusion is not logical..If you are going to be imposing such strict criteria on one kinde of publication you should be applying these criteria to them all. Very few publications would pass your test of reliability.
Ec
What other reliable publications are there that are easy to put false information into? I don't think we should consider as reliable sources wikis, or random Internet websites, or the newspaper classifieds sections either.
There are millions of academic publications - ones that actually attempt to verify the information they publish. To call that "very few" is ludicrous.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
And we haven't even mentioned the usefulness of the yellow pages in establishing the existence of a business over a time frame.
It's even easier to put false information into the yellow pages section.
So? That doesn't mean that every entry has false information.
No, it doesn't. However, it does mean that a phone book isn't a *reliable* source.
That conclusion is not logical..If you are going to be imposing such strict criteria on one kinde of publication you should be applying these criteria to them all. Very few publications would pass your test of reliability.
What other reliable publications are there that are easy to put false information into? I don't think we should consider as reliable sources wikis, or random Internet websites, or the newspaper classifieds sections either.
There are millions of academic publications - ones that actually attempt to verify the information they publish. To call that "very few" is ludicrous.
I am perhaps less willing than you to idolize the "peer-reviewed" academic publications. There have certainly been recent instances where medical publications with very high repute like the New England Journal of Medicine have had to print retractions because of bad material that was supplied to them. Doing a full scale peer review, especially in the sciences can be an expensive undertaking. Who pays for that? Even sending someone to review the author's source data is expensive. Once you have somebody there, establishing that the data was cooked amounts to undertaking a forensic audit. Even governments prefer to believe the self-evaluations provided by pharmaceutical companies. If things are so shaky in such a crucial area as medicine, one can only wonder about less important subjects. Maybe the whole peer review process is a myth, and wikis have a greater potential for effective peer review.
At least if the "National Enquirer" reports that as a result of a Hollywood startlet's friendliness with her German shephard she gave birth to a "humadog" I know that they are the ultimate authority on such matters, and I better not waste my time looking for peer reviews.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
The surname "Ng" is one of the most common in Melbourne, spanning 47 pages of the 2006 phone book...
That's a great example of a non sequitur. It's usefulness won't be established by choosing one of the most common names as a straw man. Once you've established that a person lived at a particular address his continuing appearance in the phone books for a 15 year period is evidence that he may have lived there for that 15 years. Whether any information source will be useful depends on what we are trying to do with it. Why dismiss it prematurely?
You misinterpreted his statement. He's saying that "The surname "Ng" is one of the most common in Melbourne, spanning 47 pages of the 2006 phone book" can use the phone book as a source.
On 5/30/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That's a great example of a non sequitur. It's usefulness won't be established by choosing one of the most common names as a straw man. Once you've established that a person lived at a particular address his continuing appearance in the phone books for a 15 year period is evidence that he may have lived there for that 15 years. Whether any information source will be useful depends on what we are trying to do with it. Why dismiss it prematurely?
Ec
Because you have no way of knowing whether the phone book is up-to-date. Even if the celebrity in question doesn't have a secret phone number, the encyclopedic merit of including phone book information is pretty much non-existent.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 5/30/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That's a great example of a non sequitur. It's usefulness won't be established by choosing one of the most common names as a straw man. Once you've established that a person lived at a particular address his continuing appearance in the phone books for a 15 year period is evidence that he may have lived there for that 15 years. Whether any information source will be useful depends on what we are trying to do with it. Why dismiss it prematurely?
Ec
Because you have no way of knowing whether the phone book is up-to-date. Even if the celebrity in question doesn't have a secret phone number, the encyclopedic merit of including phone book information is pretty much non-existent.
At least in North America phone books are annual publications, with a publication date like any other books. Each directory is as up to date as it can be for the publication date in question. I'm not saying that there are no limits to the utility of telephone books. They are, like encyclopedias, convenient first places to look for information, but a good researcher does not stop at that source.
Ec