In a message dated 3/30/2008 11:54:22 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, ffm@intserverror.com writes:
But would it be accepted as proof that there was activity on said bridge?>>
-------------- Of course not. We could not independently verify when the picture was taken :)
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolh...)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
WJhonson@aol.com wrote: | | In a message dated 3/30/2008 11:54:22 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, | ffm@intserverror.com writes: | | But would it be accepted as proof that there was activity on said bridge?>> | | | | -------------- | Of course not. | We could not independently verify when the picture was taken :) | | | | **************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL | Home. | (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolh...) | _______________________________________________ | WikiEN-l mailing list | WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org | To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: | https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l "However, some argue that the bridge has reopened. (link to someone's blog)".
After all, if poor sources are better than none, and if nobody challenges that information...
Or would this be the best neutral wording: "As of <date>, the bridge was reported to be closed".
- -FFM
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 03:04:30PM -0400, ffm wrote:
Or would this be the best neutral wording: "As of <date>, the bridge was reported to be closed".
If we now know that the bridge is open, then rather than directly claiming the other source is wrong, we could either:
1. Not say anything about the bridge being closed, or 2. Say that the bridge "was closed," and use the reference provided.
In other words, just because something was said by a reference doesn't mean we have to include it. We can simply ignore the reference.
"Original reasearch" refers to the actual text written in our articles. It doesn't refer to the process by which we decide what text to include; that will always involve a great deal of editorial discretion and synthesis. For example, consider the process by which we decide the "due weight" for a particular point of view.
I find it very implausible that any significant group of editors would fight to keep the wording "the bridge is closed" if someone could present compelling evidence that it isn't.
- Carl
In practice this can be very tough. The typical reaction I get in this sort of situation is that a sourced statement will (not can) be included until it is definitely refuted with another more convincing source.
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
In other words, just because something was said by a reference doesn't mean we have to include it. We can simply ignore the reference.
I don't see a problem, you can just obtain the guys responsible for the bridge's telephone number, and ring them, and stick the telephone number on the talk page and how you found it (the number is normally a public number anyway, so there's likely to be no privacy issues). Anybody wanting to verify it can ring the number. You have then referenced the information. There may well be websites as well you can reference.
It's only OR if *you* are making a new *synthesis* of information. Merely ringing somebody or looking at something on the web to see if the bridge is open/closed isn't OR, it's just consulting a source.
I wouldnt accept that as a source. For something like that there will almost always be something in a local newspaper.
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see a problem, you can just obtain the guys responsible for the bridge's telephone number, and ring them, and stick the telephone number on the talk page and how you found it (the number is normally a public number anyway, so there's likely to be no privacy issues). Anybody wanting to verify it can ring the number. You have then referenced the information. There may well be websites as well you can reference.
It's only OR if *you* are making a new *synthesis* of information. Merely ringing somebody or looking at something on the web to see if the bridge is open/closed isn't OR, it's just consulting a source.
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008, Carl Beckhorn wrote:
In other words, just because something was said by a reference doesn't mean we have to include it. We can simply ignore the reference.
"Original reasearch" refers to the actual text written in our articles. It doesn't refer to the process by which we decide what text to include; that will always involve a great deal of editorial discretion and synthesis. For example, consider the process by which we decide the "due weight" for a particular point of view.
I find it very implausible that any significant group of editors would fight to keep the wording "the bridge is closed" if someone could present compelling evidence that it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_13#...
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:44:45AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
I find it very implausible that any significant group of editors would fight to keep the wording "the bridge is closed" if someone could present compelling evidence that it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_13#...
Thank you, that ciarifies many things. In particular, this is the "reliable source" that says the bridge is closed to motor traffic:
http://www.dalejtravis.com/bridge/pennsylv/htm/3803601.htm
How exactly is that website supposed to be more reliable than anybody else's firsthand observations?
- Carl
On 31/03/2008, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
Thank you, that ciarifies many things. In particular, this is the "reliable source" that says the bridge is closed to motor traffic:
http://www.dalejtravis.com/bridge/pennsylv/htm/3803601.htm
How exactly is that website supposed to be more reliable than anybody else's firsthand observations?
In this case, it could be passable, but still legally closed (it's on private land apparently). He hasn't shown that it's legally open, or even necessarily that it's safe to cross. So his OR is that it's open.
If it was a public road, and all the cones, men and speed restrictions had disappeared that would be very different though.
- Carl
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 08:09:34PM +0100, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 31/03/2008, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
How exactly is that website supposed to be more reliable than anybody else's firsthand observations?
In this case, it could be passable, but still legally closed (it's on private land apparently). He hasn't shown that it's legally open, or even necessarily that it's safe to cross. So his OR is that it's open.
I should be more clear about what I'm saying: that website shouldn't be considered a reliable source in the first place. Imagine the reaction if any other serious document - a legal brief, an academic paper, etc. - cited the text on that website to prove the bridge is closed. There's no reason we should be citing it either.
- Carl