--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Just for the record, where is the policy stating
that Usenet /cannot/ be
used? I'm not being sarcastic; I genuinely don't
know.
The relevant policies state that Wikipedia sources must be published sources, and that the publishers must be, in some sense, reputable, authoritative, and credible. These terms are impossible to define, but they boil down to relying on publishing houses that have some form of fact-checking procedure, or peer-review if it's an academic subject. Sometimes the degree of fact-checking will be minimal, but there should be some infrastructure within which information is checked, complaints are responded to, and obviously authors are usually not anonymous.
None of these things applies to Usenet. It is pretty much the definition of a source that should not be used (except in very limited circumstances as primary-source material). See [[Wikipedia:No original research]] for more details.
Sarah
Then all of the information about Sollog has to go, all of the information about any Usenet celebrity (Kibo?), all information about any Usenet news group, unless there is '''''published''''' verification? Does this mean we can't use links to newspaper websites? Those aren't published, after all.
RickK
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Websites of established newspapers may not be published in the original sense, but they're still run by the attached news agency and therefore trustworthy sources.
On 5/7/05, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Just for the record, where is the policy stating
that Usenet /cannot/ be
used? I'm not being sarcastic; I genuinely don't
know.
The relevant policies state that Wikipedia sources must be published sources, and that the publishers must be, in some sense, reputable, authoritative, and credible. These terms are impossible to define, but they boil down to relying on publishing houses that have some form of fact-checking procedure, or peer-review if it's an academic subject. Sometimes the degree of fact-checking will be minimal, but there should be some infrastructure within which information is checked, complaints are responded to, and obviously authors are usually not anonymous.
None of these things applies to Usenet. It is pretty much the definition of a source that should not be used (except in very limited circumstances as primary-source material). See [[Wikipedia:No original research]] for more details.
Sarah
Then all of the information about Sollog has to go, all of the information about any Usenet celebrity (Kibo?), all information about any Usenet news group, unless there is '''''published''''' verification? Does this mean we can't use links to newspaper websites? Those aren't published, after all.
RickK
Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/7/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Websites of established newspapers may not be published in the original sense, but they're still run by the attached news agency and therefore trustworthy sources.
Since when has being attached to a news agency made you trustworthy?
MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
Websites of established newspapers may not be published in the original sense, but they're still run by the attached news agency and therefore trustworthy sources.
/me snorts coffee though his nose.
News agencies are trustworthy sources? Are you on drugs, or someone's payroll?
May I suggest you start with [[Journalism scandals]], and let us know when you've caught up to the present?
-- Sean Barrett | We're going to take things away from sean@epoptic.com | you on behalf of the common good. | --Hillary Clinton, 28 June 2004, | at a fundraiser for Barbara Boxer
At least newspaper editors can be tracked and held accountable for what they wrote. As for the trustworthiness. They're at least as trustworthy as the attached newspaper (as far as they are), not being published in the original sense has nothing to do with it. That last line was my point with regard to being used a source.
--Mgm
On 5/7/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
Websites of established newspapers may not be published in the original sense, but they're still run by the attached news agency and therefore trustworthy sources.
/me snorts coffee though his nose.
News agencies are trustworthy sources? Are you on drugs, or someone's payroll?
May I suggest you start with [[Journalism scandals]], and let us know when you've caught up to the present?
-- Sean Barrett | We're going to take things away from sean@epoptic.com | you on behalf of the common good. | --Hillary Clinton, 28 June 2004, | at a fundraiser for Barbara Boxer _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/7/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
At least newspaper editors can be tracked and held accountable for what they wrote. As for the trustworthiness. They're at least as trustworthy as the attached newspaper (as far as they are), not being published in the original sense has nothing to do with it. That last line was my point with regard to being used a source.
That's precisely the point: newspapers (and their websites) have a fact-checking infrastructure in place. A reporter writes a story, it's checked by the assigning editor, checked again by a copy editor, again by a page editor, and again by a proof reader, all of whom are looking for obvious legal and factual problems as well as style issues. Depending on the size of the newspaper, it might also be checked by a fact-checker. If it's a sensitive story, it might be looked at by the managing editor, the editor-in-chief, the publisher, the lawyers, and even the owners.
We don't have the resources to do any of this, which is why we rely on sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050508 08:31]:
We don't have the resources to do any of this, which is why we rely on sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.
That's why we rely on this thing called "case by case editorial judgement" to say whether to use them, and readers use a thing called "a clue" to judge the value of a given source. Your calls for an instant Arbitration Committee decision in mid-argument on the matter are, frankly, mind-boggling.
- d.
On 5/7/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050508 08:31]:
We don't have the resources to do any of this, which is why we rely on sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.
That's why we rely on this thing called "case by case editorial judgement" to say whether to use them, and readers use a thing called "a clue" to judge the value of a given source. Your calls for an instant Arbitration Committee decision in mid-argument on the matter are, frankly, mind-boggling.
Where did I call for an Arbitration Committee decision??
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com stated for the record:
That's precisely the point: newspapers (and their websites) have a fact-checking infrastructure in place. A reporter writes a story, it's checked by the assigning editor, checked again by a copy editor, again by a page editor, and again by a proof reader, all of whom are looking for obvious legal and factual problems as well as style issues. Depending on the size of the newspaper, it might also be checked by a fact-checker. If it's a sensitive story, it might be looked at by the managing editor, the editor-in-chief, the publisher, the lawyers, and even the owners.
That's a nice theory. Too bad it has little or nothing to do with the real world. Once again, I point out [[journalism scandals]].
We don't have the resources to do any of this, which is why we rely on sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, it is not Wikipedia policy.
-- Sean Barrett | It is lovely to watch the coloured sean@epoptic.com | shadows on the planets of eternal light.
On 5/7/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
We don't have the resources to do any of this, which is why we rely on sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, it is not Wikipedia policy.
Sean, I've asked three or four times if anyone can point me to any part of Wikipedia policy that states or implies that Usenet is an acceptable source, and so far, no one has done so. My understanding of the policy pages (e.g. WP:NOR) is that it's not, and I sent you a link to the section that seems to back me up. It doesn't mention Usenet explicitly, but the description of what type of source is acceptable would definitely exclude it. I'd say you're the one operating on the basis of your opinion only, not me. But if I'm wrong, show me.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com stated for the record:
Sean, I've asked three or four times if anyone can point me to any part of Wikipedia policy that states or implies that Usenet is an acceptable source, and so far, no one has done so. My understanding of the policy pages (e.g. WP:NOR) is that it's not, and I sent you a link to the section that seems to back me up. It doesn't mention Usenet explicitly, but the description of what type of source is acceptable would definitely exclude it. I'd say you're the one operating on the basis of your opinion only, not me. But if I'm wrong, show me.
Policy does not list what is allowed, it lists what is prohibited. In other words, if it is not explicitly forbidden, it is permitted. That's the only way policy could ever work!
Challenge: show me where it is explicitly stated that articles on naval vessels are permitted. You can't. Does that mean they're prohibited?
Since there is nothing in policy stating "Usenet is off-limits," its use is allowed.
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/7/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
We don't have the resources to do any of this, which is why we rely on sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, it is not Wikipedia policy.
Sean, I've asked three or four times if anyone can point me to any part of Wikipedia policy that states or implies that Usenet is an acceptable source, and so far, no one has done so. My understanding of the policy pages (e.g. WP:NOR) is that it's not, and I sent you a link to the section that seems to back me up. It doesn't mention Usenet explicitly, but the description of what type of source is acceptable would definitely exclude it. I'd say you're the one operating on the basis of your opinion only, not me. But if I'm wrong, show me.
Apparently the page is not as clear as it could be then, because I read WP:NOR to mean exactly the opposite of your interpretation.
Why don't you try adding "For instance, Usenet is never a valid secondary source" to the page and see how that goes? I think everybody on the mailing list understands everybody else's position by now, even if they don't agree with it; let's write it up for the benefit of future editors.
Stan
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/7/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
We don't have the resources to do any of this, which is why we rely on sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, it is not Wikipedia policy.
Sean, I've asked three or four times if anyone can point me to any part of Wikipedia policy that states or implies that Usenet is an acceptable source, and so far, no one has done so. My understanding of the policy pages (e.g. WP:NOR) is that it's not, and I sent you a link to the section that seems to back me up. It doesn't mention Usenet explicitly, but the description of what type of source is acceptable would definitely exclude it. I'd say you're the one operating on the basis of your opinion only, not me. But if I'm wrong, show me.
I do not see any explicit reference barring the use of Usenet as a source. I suspect that you may have a much stricter interpretation of NOR than at least some other Wikipedians. I think most of us would agree that individual postings on Usenet would not be of much value as a citation for any particular claim made about a specific subject (other than documenting what that poster said at a particular point in time). However, many usegroup have FAQs and other moderated documentation which are produced in a similar manner as the Wiki model and are roughly about as accurate as much of the content in Wikipedia. I see no basis for barring such content indiscriminately. Like most everything else on Wikipedia, determining the merits of any particular claim and the references supporting such a claim is a matter of open-ended discussion and revision.
The worthwhileness of any citation in Wikipedia is dependent on having multiple readers, where if the citation is being used to support a controverisal claim, some of those readers are willing to examine the source and provide a separate evaluation. You say we don't have the resources to do any of this, but I thought that was precisely the strength of the Wiki editing model--hundreds, thousands, or even potentially millions of readers/editors, some of whom have the interest and motivation to cull out the worst crap and revise and improve that which is worth keeping. I've seen numerous attempts to use mainstream sources to support claims that upon closer examination were not actually supported by the sources. Without someone willing to examine the sources and evaluate the merits, anyone can make up citations that "look" good.
Bkonrad
Bill Konrad wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Sean, I've asked three or four times if anyone can point me to any part of Wikipedia policy that states or implies that Usenet is an acceptable source, and so far, no one has done so. My understanding of the policy pages (e.g. WP:NOR) is that it's not, and I sent you a link to the section that seems to back me up. It doesn't mention Usenet explicitly, but the description of what type of source is acceptable would definitely exclude it. I'd say you're the one operating on the basis of your opinion only, not me. But if I'm wrong, show me.
I do not see any explicit reference barring the use of Usenet as a source. I suspect that you may have a much stricter interpretation of NOR than at least some other Wikipedians. I think most of us would agree that individual postings on Usenet would not be of much value as a citation for any particular claim made about a specific subject (other than documenting what that poster said at a particular point in time). However, many usegroup have FAQs and other moderated documentation which are produced in a similar manner as the Wiki model and are roughly about as accurate as much of the content in Wikipedia. I see no basis for barring such content indiscriminately. Like most everything else on Wikipedia, determining the merits of any particular claim and the references supporting such a claim is a matter of open-ended discussion and revision.
The worthwhileness of any citation in Wikipedia is dependent on having multiple readers, where if the citation is being used to support a controverisal claim, some of those readers are willing to examine the source and provide a separate evaluation. You say we don't have the resources to do any of this, but I thought that was precisely the strength of the Wiki editing model--hundreds, thousands, or even potentially millions of readers/editors, some of whom have the interest and motivation to cull out the worst crap and revise and improve that which is worth keeping. I've seen numerous attempts to use mainstream sources to support claims that upon closer examination were not actually supported by the sources. Without someone willing to examine the sources and evaluate the merits, anyone can make up citations that "look" good.
I have never used Usenet as a source of information, and, given the controversy that it engenders, I would only do so with extreme caution. I would make no absolute rule against using it, but a critical reader needs to be aware that its use as a reference will taint the credibility of the material. The value of an article depends on the combined credibility of its sources and integrity of its contributors.
As a person who is a manic book collector I am not lacking in obscure sources. I could correctly cite an issue of the "Strand Magazine" to say that Queen Victoria enjoyed mountain climbing and reached the top of several of the highest peaks in Scotland, but I would be wrong to cite the same reference to say that she broke her leg during one of these climbs? Good scholarship would require that these facts be checked, but who is going to do that kind of checking even when I make it easy by giving the date and page number for the information. If people do that checking, and find that I am consistently adding fraudulent information my reputation will suffer. In the absence of checking the wrong information could remain there for years.
Ec
On 5/9/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I have never used Usenet as a source of information, and, given the controversy that it engenders, I would only do so with extreme caution. I would make no absolute rule against using it, but a critical reader needs to be aware that its use as a reference will taint the credibility of the material. The value of an article depends on the combined credibility of its sources and integrity of its contributors.
UseNet is a great source of facts for UseNet-related information. Other editors have described using it to test the period of use of words, phrases, abbreviations and memes. It is a good source for certain types of information so long as used wisely and selectively.
But using it as a checkable source for general knowledge - the sort of material one would generally expect to find in an encyclopaedia - well, I think you've hit the nail on the head with your remarks above.
Having said that, I note that Wikipedia is not as authoritative a source as we would like. Editors all too often post material that belongs in the realm of "community myth" rather than "checkable fact". Just like UseNet.
On 5/8/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
As a person who is a manic book collector I am not lacking in obscure sources. I could correctly cite an issue of the "Strand Magazine" to say that Queen Victoria enjoyed mountain climbing and reached the top of several of the highest peaks in Scotland, but I would be wrong to cite the same reference to say that she broke her leg during one of these climbs? Good scholarship would require that these facts be checked, but who is going to do that kind of checking even when I make it easy by giving the date and page number for the information. If people do that checking, and find that I am consistently adding fraudulent information my reputation will suffer. In the absence of checking the wrong information could remain there for years.
You don't have to go even that far. Most people don't have easy access to checking something as mainstream as a New York Times article from ten years ago. Most wouldn't even bother checking.
...UNLESS it was incommensurate with another network of facts. I know next to nothing about Queen Victoria, but if you posted some obscure reference about one of the characters I knew about, I'd probably try to track it down if it didn't harmonize with my previous knowledge.
References can be faked for academic papers, too. But as a network of eyes, they become less problematic. Not every reference will be checked, but not every reference warrants checking (as a somewhat related humorous note: I read a very poor book today where the author had cited FOUR separate sources to back up the claim that "Charles Darwin was born to a wealthy family.").
In the end, attribution of sources works in all cases. Sometimes a disclaimer is necesary. But I don't see why Usenet is any worse than any other source, assuming the attribution is done correctly. I wouldn't cite Usenet for information about the speed of light. But I would cite it for information about how a well-known Usenet figure is portrayed on Usenet. Which seems to be what this is all about. This seems fairly obvious to me.
FF
"Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I have never used Usenet as a source of information, and, given the controversy that it engenders, I would only do so with extreme caution. I would make no absolute rule against using it, but a critical reader needs to be aware that its use as a reference will taint the credibility of the material. The value of an article depends on the combined credibility of its sources and integrity of its contributors.
Yes, I agree. In general, Usenet is close to the bottom of the barrel in terms of reliability. However, there is still some valuable information to be found on Usenet in between the volumes of drek and I think it is misguided to pre-emptively bar it as a source. It should certainly be deprecated, and wherevery possible other sources should be substituted. But much of the better quality material to be found on Usenet is really more a sort of a tertiary reference, summarizing and often listing other references. As a hypothetical example, if Joe Blow comes along and sees that there isn't any topic about some old bridge over the river backwater, but he knows of a Usenet FAQ in alt.obscure.bridges.moderated describing the bridge and decides to write an article about the bridge based on the FAQ, then I think he should encouraged to do so and to cite the FAQ as a source. The FAQ might well mention arcane some print sources that are unavailable to Joe (or maybe he's not interested in looking them up himself or maybe he's clueless about how to incorporate citations from another source into his writing). If using Usenet as a source is summarily barred, then the other sources for that information would not be very easily available for future editors who might be interested in improving the article. And if the Usenet FAQ turns out to be a work of fiction, then having it identified as a source for the article will also make it easier for future editors to weed out the garbage.
Bkonrad
On 5/8/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
That's precisely the point: newspapers (and their websites) have a fact-checking infrastructure in place. A reporter writes a story, it's checked by the assigning editor, checked again by a copy editor, again by a page editor, and again by a proof reader, all of whom are looking for obvious legal and factual problems as well as style issues. Depending on the size of the newspaper, it might also be checked by a fact-checker. If it's a sensitive story, it might be looked at by the managing editor, the editor-in-chief, the publisher, the lawyers, and even the owners.
I challenged an editor to come up with checkable sources once. He flatly refused. Slim here went screaming off when I proposed deleting any material for which no source was given.
Seems the rules change if it's a mate.
We don't have the resources to do any of this, which is why we rely on sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.
If it's a Usenet story, Usenet is a good source. You want to see who received Net-Kook of the Year award, there's no other source. Britannica is silent on the matter.
Just common sense, really.
Being bold, I just added a paragraph discussing Usenet as a source to the "what counts as a reputable publication?" section of [[WP:NOR]].
Oddly enough, it supports my position and contradicts SlimVirgin's ... ;->
Lay on, Macduff, and damn'd be him that first cries, "Hold, enough!"
On 5/8/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
I challenged an editor to come up with checkable sources once. He flatly refused. Slim here went screaming off when I proposed deleting any material for which no source was given.
Seems the rules change if it's a mate.
Peter, for the record, you were trying to insert that Australia is a republic, and wouldn't accept the hundreds of sources available that contradict that.
Sarah
On 5/9/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/8/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/8/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
That's precisely the point: newspapers (and their websites) have a fact-checking infrastructure in place. A reporter writes a story, it's checked by the assigning editor, checked again by a copy editor, again by a page editor, and again by a proof reader, all of whom are looking for obvious legal and factual problems as well as style issues. Depending on the size of the newspaper, it might also be checked by a fact-checker. If it's a sensitive story, it might be looked at by the managing editor, the editor-in-chief, the publisher, the lawyers, and even the owners.
I challenged an editor to come up with checkable sources once. He flatly refused. Slim here went screaming off when I proposed deleting any material for which no source was given.
Seems the rules change if it's a mate.
Peter, for the record, you were trying to insert that Australia is a republic, and wouldn't accept the hundreds of sources available that contradict that.
Smoke and mirrors, dear. Please don't try to wriggle away. You can hardly claim to promote integrity and journalistic standards if you don't practice what you preach.
On an issue entirely separate to whether Australia is a republic or not, I asked Adam Carr to provide checkable sources for his statements.
He flatly refused, with vile abuse.
You defended him and went running off in search of support in case I made good on my proposal to remove anything that wasn't properly sourced. Your statements, Adam's and mine are all a matter of record, and I don't think it will be too difficult to pull them out. Do you remember the incident now?
On 5/9/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Peter, for the record, you were trying to insert that Australia is a republic, and wouldn't accept the hundreds of sources available that contradict that.
"Hundreds of sources?" Hyperbole on top of hypocrisy. As I recall, the only sources provided were a couple of dictionary definitions. In fact most dictionaries provide multiple definitions of republic. Most definitions include Australia, some don't.
I can see I'm going to have to spend more time on Wikipedia, now that I'm home again.
Sean Barrett wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
Websites of established newspapers may not be published in the original sense, but they're still run by the attached news agency and therefore trustworthy sources.
/me snorts coffee though his nose.
News agencies are trustworthy sources? Are you on drugs, or someone's payroll?
May I suggest you start with [[Journalism scandals]], and let us know when you've caught up to the present?
No source is to be trusted completely. Newspapers, because of their tight deadlines, are more easily prone to error. As I indicated in a previous comment on another thread The "National Post" reported McHenry's criticism of Wikipedia's article on President Alexander Hamilton. Neither McHenry nor Wikipedia had used the word "president".
Ec