Wikipedia:Archives as sources WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
There is a proposal going on to alter the No Original Research policy.
Just in case people missed it.
Garion96
On 12 Apr 2006, at 21:08, Garion1000 wrote:
Wikipedia:Archives as sources WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
There is a proposal going on to alter the No Original Research policy.
Just in case people missed it.
Yes, can you provide a link if you mail to the list.
Justinc
On 4/12/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 12 Apr 2006, at 21:08, Garion1000 wrote:
Wikipedia:Archives as sources WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
There is a proposal going on to alter the No Original Research policy.
Just in case people missed it.
Yes, can you provide a link if you mail to the list.
Justinc
Weird, it does show in my sent mail that I did. Anyway, here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archives_as_sources
Garion96
That doesn't even begin to capture its ridiculousness. Most of the arguments in favor seem to be "Yeah, we should be on the cutting edge of research!" and "Well I work in an archive which no one has heard about and I want to be able to post thing I found in it."
Fortunately I'm fairly sure that no matter how many misguided people vote to support this ridiculous thing, being that what they are asking for is essentially a complete repeal of NOR, it would never be able to be implemented anyway.
FF
On 4/12/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
A poorly thought out proposal, I feel.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/13/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't even begin to capture its ridiculousness.
As an Englishman, I carry a current understatement license.
-Matt
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 09:59 -0700, Matt Brown wrote:
On 4/13/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't even begin to capture its ridiculousness.
As an Englishman, I carry a current understatement license.
Understatement license? Thats not an understatement license. Its an irony license with the word 'irony' crossed out and the word 'understatement' added.
Justinc
On 4/13/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Thats not an understatement license. Its an irony license with the word 'irony' crossed out and the word 'understatement' added.
in crayon?
I have a certain sympathy for the idea - for example, it makes a certain amount of sense, when a person's date of birth is in dispute, to get a copy of their birth certificate. However, this isn't foolproof - I remember someone saying that their birth certificate said "February 30". A good researcher would have taken the primary source material, and put it in context. My grandfather's birth certificate said November 11, but he always said that he was actually born November 1, but that there was a fine for late registration, so his parents gave a later date. If he was notable enough to have a Wikipedia article (he isn't) I could have consulted the original archival material, and said: born [[November 11]], [[1906]]. I could not have used his story to say: born [[November 1]], despite what his birth certificate says (as that's OR). A real historian would have taken the archival material and the anecdote and cross-checked against the story of their being a fine for late registration, and maybe determined from other sources whether such practised were commonplace at the time...and then used that to decide the plausibility of the date of birth (and published it, of course).
Unpublished primary sources can only be valid sources about the content they contain ("his birth certificate says..."). In the hands of an amateur, they really can't be taken to say anything more, we can't evaluate how good the source is, we can't determine how much weight to give to one source as opposed to another...
On 13/04/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Unpublished primary sources can only be valid sources about the content they contain ("his birth certificate says..."). In the hands of an amateur, they really can't be taken to say anything more, we can't evaluate how good the source is, we can't determine how much weight to give to one source as opposed to another...
I like your approach here. Proposal for NOR summary: "Leave original research to the experts. If you are an expert, leave it to a different expert."
Seriously, that's the basic problem isn't it - amateurs trying to do the work of experts. That was exactly the issue at [[Safe Speed]] - editors were attempting to debunk the claims of this group themselves, by digging up scientific papers and applying them directly to the data. Which wound up with a Wikipedia amateur scientist going head to head with a Safe Speed amateur scientist - totally pointless. The few "professional" refutations of their claims were totally acceptable and encyclopaedia-worthy, of course.
Steve
On 4/14/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, that's the basic problem isn't it - amateurs trying to do the work of experts.
Isn't that the definition of Wikipedia? ;)
On 4/14/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/14/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, that's the basic problem isn't it - amateurs trying to do the work of experts.
Isn't that the definition of Wikipedia? ;)
Hmmm...now that you have shot a huge hole in my generalisation...
I really hadn't thought of it that way. We are amateurs trying to be encyclopaedists to some extent. But we are amateurs playing at being editors (in some cases, professional editors playing at being amateur editors...), not amateurs playing at being subject experts (though again, some of us are subject experts). Ok, so discard my summary line, and stick with Steve's - I think he got my point across better than I did.
Ian
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:08:32 +0200, you wrote:
There is a proposal going on to alter the No Original Research policy.
Two, actually, if you include the edit war at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research Guy (JzG)
On 4/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Two, actually, if you include the edit war at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR
Although that one appears much less in good faith than the other proposal.
-Matt
On 4/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:08:32 +0200, you wrote:
There is a proposal going on to alter the No Original Research policy.
Two, actually, if you include the edit war at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research Guy (JzG)
Oh brother, didn't even realised that was going on as well.
Garion96
Honestly, the verifiability argument doesn't fly at all with me. If you pick information out of an archive, it's most certainly verifiable, someone else can check it out as well. I realise that that is a hassle, but that doesn't change the fact that it is verfiable.
How about, as a compromise, if someone would like to include a source from an archive, they are required to submit a copy of the document, so everyone can see it for themselves.
The WP:NOR argument is better, but it's still sketchy. WP:NOR is kinda devious, and if we take it to an absolute, one might arrive at strange conclusions. The classic case is book summaries, that you can't write a book summary based solely on the book, because then you might be construed as doing research about it (this is obviously ridiculusly exagerrated (I have no idea whether I spelled any of those two words right), but one could make that argument).
The fact is, it's really hard to define research in this context. How is looking up someones birth certificate in an archive worse than looking it up on the internet?Technically, they're both research. Honestly, I'd prefer it if the info got directly from the source. Same thing with things such as trial transcripts, if we quote someone from a trial, I'd prefer it if we knew excactly, word by word, what they were saying instead of trusting a third party.
As long as you don't do analysis, and pick your information straight from the source, document it and be sure other people can see it too, what's the big deal? How is that any different from looking up information on the internet or in a magazine from half a century ago? Especially so if we make them provide a copy of the document.
--Oskar
On 4/12/06, Garion1000 garion1000@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia:Archives as sources WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
There is a proposal going on to alter the No Original Research policy.
Just in case people missed it.
Garion96 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Oskar Sigvardsson stated for the record:
Honestly, the verifiability argument doesn't fly at all with me. If you pick information out of an archive, it's most certainly verifiable, someone else can check it out as well. I realise that that is a hassle, but that doesn't change the fact that it is verfiable.
I have a specific example: the Wikipedia article on a notable historical figure, like all other sources I have checked, states that he had two wives (in series, not parallel). However, an official government-issued marriage certificate on file in a county clerk's office proves that he had another wife between those two. What will I be permitted to add to this person's article?
- -- Sean Barrett | People who need to be shot usually need to sean@epoptic.org | be shot soon and a lot. Very few people | need to be shot later or just a little.
On 4/14/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I have a specific example: the Wikipedia article on a notable historical figure, like all other sources I have checked, states that he had two wives (in series, not parallel). However, an official government-issued marriage certificate on file in a county clerk's office proves that he had another wife between those two. What will I be permitted to add to this person's article?
Well, in your case, the archival material directly contradicts the published result, then that may not be an appriopriate use of archival material. I talking about cases like, was Nancy Reagan born in 1921 or 1923? Was Jennifer Lopez born in 1969 or 1970 (I use these two examples only because they come to mind right now, I was looking through WP:LAME earlier today :P)? Also, the article that started all this [[Hopkins School]], also used archival sources in a pretty clear way.
Having said that I don't think you should include archival information in that specific situation (because of the contradiction thing), you could if you wished write something like (now, this is without knowing any specifics) "There exists a marriage liscense that suggests that he may have been married inbetween these two marriges, however there are no research to support this" or something a little bit slicker.
Your example is a very good counter-argument for why we should use archival material sparingly, if at all, but I still think that it can be very useful for finding out very specific things like dates of birth and marriages, city-populations, etc. (hard data, that is).
--Oskar
Taken at face value, I think that the simple answer to both Oskar and Sean's questions is yes, thes are OR.
In the case of Oskar's first question, when you read a book to write a summary, or view a film to write a summary, it constitutes OR. I suppose ideally what you should be doing in consulting book or film reviews, and using them to construct your own. Why is it a problem? For the most part, it probably isn't. Nonetheless, if you are doing more than relating the simple facts of the movie, it becomes a creative endeavour, and that isn't a good thing.
In the case of the number of wives of a famous person or the birth date of Nancy Reagan, if one of us can find the birth or marriage certificates, then hopefully so should their biographers. In the case of Nancy Reagan or Jennifer Lopez, it amounts to a WP:V issue - and their press agent isn't a reliable source.
In the case of a discrepancy between what you can find for yourself and what the article says - I suppose the place to start is with {{fact}} or something stronger. Obviously, if you have found the marriage certificate, why haven't other people? Or is it that they just aren't famous enough to have a real biographer? I'd say it is problematic. Personally I wouldn't think twice about trusting Sean's veracity - but the truth is, we don't have "trusted editors" and in theory, what stands for Sean should stand for any anon.
I wouldn't have a huge problem with the examples cited, but any alteration of policy would have to be extremely tightly worded.
Ian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Guettarda stated for the record:
In the case of a discrepancy between what you can find for yourself and what the article says - I suppose the place to start is with {{fact}} or something stronger. Obviously, if you have found the marriage certificate, why haven't other people? Or is it that they just aren't famous enough to have a real biographer? I'd say it is problematic. Personally I wouldn't think twice about trusting Sean's veracity - but the truth is, we don't have "trusted editors" and in theory, what stands for Sean should stand for any anon.
Thank you for the complement, but I would never expect anyone to simply take anyone else's word for any source. In this situation, I would post a scanned copy of the certificate and detailed information about where to see the original.
I maintain that mere difficulty of access should not be a criterion in evaluating sources. If a source /can/ be obtained by any editor, be it by Google, by using the public library, by snail-mail, or by traveling by camel to Samarkand, then it is a valid source, IMAO. In contrast, many of us have access to material that cannot be verified by those outside our professions. There is, for example, quite a lot of perfectly innocuous, unclassified, public domain data that only people with .mil e-mail addresses would be able to verify.
- -- Sean Barrett | All I ask is the chance to prove sean@epoptic.org | that money can't make me happy.
Sean Barrett wrote:
Guettarda stated for the record:
In the case of a discrepancy between what you can find for yourself and what the article says - I suppose the place to start is with {{fact}} or something stronger. Obviously, if you have found the marriage certificate, why haven't other people? Or is it that they just aren't famous enough to have a real biographer? I'd say it is problematic. Personally I wouldn't think twice about trusting Sean's veracity - but the truth is, we don't have "trusted editors" and in theory, what stands for Sean should stand for any anon.
Thank you for the complement, but I would never expect anyone to simply take anyone else's word for any source. In this situation, I would post a scanned copy of the certificate and detailed information about where to see the original.
I maintain that mere difficulty of access should not be a criterion in evaluating sources. If a source /can/ be obtained by any editor, be it by Google, by using the public library, by snail-mail, or by traveling by camel to Samarkand, then it is a valid source, IMAO. In contrast, many of us have access to material that cannot be verified by those outside our professions. There is, for example, quite a lot of perfectly innocuous, unclassified, public domain data that only people with .mil e-mail addresses would be able to verify.
By making restricting access in this way the material if effectively classified. It is clearly a low level classification, but classified nevertheless. The key question should be, "Is the material available to anyone?" Can a stranger off the street have anonymous access somewhere? Is a website valid if it is the only source of the material but requires membership for passive access to the material.
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ray Saintonge stated for the record:
Sean Barrett wrote:
I maintain that mere difficulty of access should not be a criterion in evaluating sources. If a source /can/ be obtained by any editor, be it by Google, by using the public library, by snail-mail, or by traveling by camel to Samarkand, then it is a valid source, IMAO. In contrast, many of us have access to material that cannot be verified by those outside our professions. There is, for example, quite a lot of perfectly innocuous, unclassified, public domain data that only people with .mil e-mail addresses would be able to verify.
By making restricting access in this way the material if effectively classified. It is clearly a low level classification, but classified nevertheless. The key question should be, "Is the material available to anyone?" Can a stranger off the street have anonymous access somewhere? Is a website valid if it is the only source of the material but requires membership for passive access to the material.
Ec
Exactly. J.Random Wikeditor could, if he really wanted to, verify for himself whether or not Titian's /Danae/ is in fact hanging in the Hermitage. He cannot personally verify the number of laptops in use by VFA-122, /even though that number is not restricted in any way/ -- except by being published only (as far as I know) on a military network.
- -- Sean Barrett | All I ask is the chance to prove sean@epoptic.org | that money can't make me happy.
On 4/14/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Taken at face value, I think that the simple answer to both Oskar and Sean's questions is yes, thes are OR.
In the case of Oskar's first question, when you read a book to write a summary, or view a film to write a summary, it constitutes OR. I suppose ideally what you should be doing in consulting book or film reviews, and using them to construct your own. Why is it a problem? For the most part, it probably isn't. Nonetheless, if you are doing more than relating the simple facts of the movie, it becomes a creative endeavour, and that isn't a good thing.
Honestly, I think that is taking WP:NOR way too far. A book summary is one of the easiest things to verify, just pick up the book and see for yourselves. It is easy to spot where there is strict outlining of the facts, and it is just as easy to see where the author inserts his own opinion or analysis. For instance, take [[Pride and Prejudice]]. It contains a long detailed summary of what's in the book. What if we were to ask for a source that Mr Collins first proposed to Elizabeth Bennet and, when turned down, asked Charlotte Lucas. The contributor would probably say "Just read the damn thing and see for yourselves!" And he'd be right, that is by far the best way, instead of relying on a third party, which may or may not be entirely trustworthy (and migth be hard to find).
One can also get all philosophical and say that when you something from a secondary source, you do the same thing, you analyze and parse the information and put it in your own words. Infact, besides making straight-copyvio copies of text, arn't we all breaking WP:NOR by simply contributing? However, that argument is just plain silly :P
In the case of the number of wives of a famous person or the birth date of Nancy Reagan, if one of us can find the birth or marriage certificates, then hopefully so should their biographers. In the case of Nancy Reagan or Jennifer Lopez, it amounts to a WP:V issue - and their press agent isn't a reliable source.
First off, does J.Lo even have a biographer? I assume she does, but it's not like her life is totally over or anything............
Second, you are right, the press agent is not reliable as a source, so that's why we should go to the birth certificate. What's more accurate in informing of a birth date than a birth certificate.
In the case of a discrepancy between what you can find for yourself and what the article says - I suppose the place to start is with {{fact}} or something stronger. Obviously, if you have found the marriage certificate, why haven't other people? Or is it that they just aren't famous enough to have a real biographer? I'd say it is problematic. Personally I wouldn't think twice about trusting Sean's veracity - but the truth is, we don't have "trusted editors" and in theory, what stands for Sean should stand for any anon.
I agree, that's why he should submit a scanned copy of whatever he finds, and provide detailed information about where he found it. That way, what stands for Sean, stands for everyone.
I wouldn't have a huge problem with the examples cited, but any alteration of policy would have to be extremely tightly worded.
Yes, I completely agree.
--Oskar
On 4/14/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/14/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote: Honestly, I think that is taking WP:NOR way too far. A book summary is one of the easiest things to verify, just pick up the book and see for yourselves. It is easy to spot where there is strict outlining of the facts, and it is just as easy to see where the author inserts his own opinion or analysis. For instance, take [[Pride and Prejudice]]. It contains a long detailed summary of what's in the book. What if we were to ask for a source that Mr Collins first proposed to Elizabeth Bennet and, when turned down, asked Charlotte Lucas. The contributor would probably say "Just read the damn thing and see for yourselves!" And he'd be right, that is by far the best way, instead of relying on a third party, which may or may not be entirely trustworthy (and migth be hard to find).
As he said, in most cases summaries are not an issue. But "see for yourselves" does not work for any claims which are not strictly about who did what at what time. For example, I could write something in the [[Origin of Species]] article which claims that this book actually is an explicit call to overthrow the British upper-classes. Someone else would no doubt object. I am sure I could cite pages and lines from the book which support such a goofy interpretation (but one not uncommon in the late 19th century). But in this case, it would be clear that my "summary" was considerably different than practically every secondary interpretation of the book. This is where the NOR rule is handy -- it helps you clean out people's idiosyncratic interpretations of primary sources, of which the internet abounds (if you believed what you read online, Albert Einstein was a card-carrying believer in every religion and philosophy on the planet -- everybody likes to find some way to relate Einstein's vague metaphysical writes to their own personal outlook). When something is in real doubt (not a matter of uncontested facts), we should go with the secondary literature.
One can also get all philosophical and say that when you something
from a secondary source, you do the same thing, you analyze and parse the information and put it in your own words. Infact, besides making straight-copyvio copies of text, arn't we all breaking WP:NOR by simply contributing? However, that argument is just plain silly :P
I run into issues like this pretty regularly. The older a source is, and the more people can relate it to something contemporary, the more you get this. If you do anything at all on major intellectual figures then I imagine it comes up pretty often. Again, in many situations summaries and quotations are unproblematic and, as such, generally unchallenged. When people raise an eyebrow, though, that's when the NOR really kicks in with a fury. And lo, it is good.
FF
Guettarda wrote:
In the case of Oskar's first question, when you read a book to write a summary, or view a film to write a summary, it constitutes OR. I suppose ideally what you should be doing in consulting book or film reviews, and using them to construct your own. Why is it a problem? For the most part, it probably isn't. Nonetheless, if you are doing more than relating the simple facts of the movie, it becomes a creative endeavour, and that isn't a good thing.
Calling this OR is a little severe. It has the effect of applying higher standards to fiction than to non-fiction. Accuracy in reporting on the real world should be more important. A work of fiction is its own verifiable evidence of what it contains.
Ec
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Having said that I don't think you should include archival information in that specific situation (because of the contradiction thing), you could if you wished write something like (now, this is without knowing any specifics) "There exists a marriage liscense that suggests that he may have been married inbetween these two marriges, however there are no research to support this" or something a little bit slicker.
So a marriage license (presumably found in a public archive) merely "suggests" that this marriage exists. ;-) I admit that it is possible to lie on such official documents (I've done it myself), but there should be a presumption that most people will complete these documents truthfully.
Ec
On 15/04/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I admit that it is possible to lie on such official documents (I've done it myself), but there should be a presumption that most people will complete these documents truthfully.
Life is so much easier than that. "According to the official marriage license, John Bloggson was married on..." Absolute truth is not our game.
Steve
On 14/04/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Oskar Sigvardsson stated for the record:
Honestly, the verifiability argument doesn't fly at all with me. If you pick information out of an archive, it's most certainly verifiable, someone else can check it out as well. I realise that that is a hassle, but that doesn't change the fact that it is verfiable.
I have a specific example: the Wikipedia article on a notable historical figure, like all other sources I have checked, states that he had two wives (in series, not parallel). However, an official government-issued marriage certificate on file in a county clerk's office proves that he had another wife between those two. What will I be permitted to add to this person's article?
----
"It has generally been accepted that Smith married Joan in 1972, after Janet died in 1967. However, an archived marriage certificate suggests an intermediate marriage, to Jane, from 1969 to an unknown date, which was not known to biographers until recently.[1]"
[1] See /A third wife?/ Barrett, S. 2006. http://www.epoptic.org/~sean/
----
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 4/14/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/04/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Oskar Sigvardsson stated for the record:
Honestly, the verifiability argument doesn't fly at all with me. If you pick information out of an archive, it's most certainly verifiable, someone else can check it out as well. I realise that that is a hassle, but that doesn't change the fact that it is verfiable.
I have a specific example: the Wikipedia article on a notable historical figure, like all other sources I have checked, states that he had two wives (in series, not parallel). However, an official government-issued marriage certificate on file in a county clerk's office proves that he had another wife between those two. What will I be permitted to add to this person's article?
"It has generally been accepted that Smith married Joan in 1972, after Janet died in 1967. However, an archived marriage certificate suggests an intermediate marriage, to Jane, from 1969 to an unknown date, which was not known to biographers until recently.[1]"
[1] See /A third wife?/ Barrett, S. 2006. http://www.epoptic.org/~sean/
Yeah, that does sound really silly, doesn't it. :P Well, as I said, that's a case where should probably NOT use the archival information. I'm just not so comfortable with a blanket ban against them.
Sean Barrett wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson stated for the record:
Honestly, the verifiability argument doesn't fly at all with me. If you pick information out of an archive, it's most certainly verifiable, someone else can check it out as well. I realise that that is a hassle, but that doesn't change the fact that it is verfiable.
I have a specific example: the Wikipedia article on a notable historical figure, like all other sources I have checked, states that he had two wives (in series, not parallel). However, an official government-issued marriage certificate on file in a county clerk's office proves that he had another wife between those two. What will I be permitted to add to this person's article?
It would make no sense not to include the mid-wife. If you saw the marriage certificate, and it is available for anyone who goes to that clerk's office to see it is verifiable. Is it ethical to maintain something which you know to be false just to be in complance with technical regulations?
Ec
On 4/14/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, the verifiability argument doesn't fly at all with me. If you pick information out of an archive, it's most certainly verifiable, someone else can check it out as well. I realise that that is a hassle, but that doesn't change the fact that it is verfiable.
"Verfiable" of course does not mean "absolutely verfiable" (in which all facts would at some level be), but clearly something on a spectrum from "anyone can see it by clicking a link" to "it's an old book but there are copies of it in at least a few major repositories where a large number of Wikipedians are located." In the last category, it is worth noting that a significant number of Wikipedians are students at universities with extensive library services, including interlibrary loan, and it would not be very hard to verify 90% of all very-old book references. It would be a rare source indeed that somebody in the University of California system or in the Ivy Leagues would not be able to verify within a few days, to speak nothing of all of the other universities in the world with fine and extensive library services.
If something is archival and unpublished though, it generally means that it is in one single archive. That archive may have no interarchival lending options. There may be no interested Wikipedians with access to that archive. There are no doubt a few exceptions, but so rare would they be, and certainly not worth changing a very good policy, one which sits as a chief cornerstone to our epistemological approach, in order to satisfy. All of the proposed benefits (a few birth/death dates? information about obscure and probably non-notable institutions?) seem a paltry thing in comparison with the fact that removing "verfiabiilty" would create an endless mess of difficulty with POV-pushers.
How about, as a compromise, if someone would like to include a source
from an archive, they are required to submit a copy of the document, so everyone can see it for themselves.
If they can host it semi-permanently somewhere (a scan at Commons, for example), then it is, so far as I can reason, "published" and verfiability is no longer an issue (NOR might still be, but that's a different can of worms). If they cannot put it somewhere where editors of the future can see it then no, it is still unpublished and unverifiable except to the small group of editors who happened to see it at one point in time.
The fact is, it's really hard to define research in this context. How
is looking up someones birth certificate in an archive worse than looking it up on the internet?Technically, they're both research. Honestly, I'd prefer it if the info got directly from the source. Same thing with things such as trial transcripts, if we quote someone from a trial, I'd prefer it if we knew excactly, word by word, what they were saying instead of trusting a third party.
NOR would not prohibit people quoting from trial transcripts or other primary source material, so long as it was not being used in a way which is "unique." I could quote all I wanted from the Oppenheimer trial but if I quoted out of context in order to prove he was a space alien, that would be NOR. If I did it to substantiate and add color to the standard interpretation (or any of the possible notable POVs included in the article), that would be just fine, of course.
The above only holds true if the primary source is accessible and verifiable though. If I say that a quote in a secondary source is wrong but can't provide any proof of it, then other editors are going to have to take me at my word. That's a bad policy -- there are far too many people who either purposefully or unintentionally mis-read or mis-quote to support their arguments to allow this. Even I sometimes make transcription mistakes, and I do archival research for a living. Perhaps it is not assuming "good faith", but I don't want a policy which lets people assert things that I cannot check. The entire system of Wikipedia relies upon multiple eyes being able to see something, and what you're suggesting is that we just jetison that in the case of primary sources (which are already difficulty enough for people to interpret).
As long as you don't do analysis, and pick your information straight
from the source, document it and be sure other people can see it too, what's the big deal? How is that any different from looking up information on the internet or in a magazine from half a century ago? Especially so if we make them provide a copy of the document.
If other people "can see it too" and we can "provide a (long term) copy of the document" then verifiability is not a problem at all. There is no such thing as using a primary source without "doing analysis", as any historian will tell you. All reading involves interpretation. All quoting (and all narrative) involves being selective. The current policies allow for plenty of flexibility in regards to editing and researching; they require that at the end, all interpretations are anchored in a secondary source, and that all sources used should be verifiable.
I've yet to see a compelling reason why that shouldn't remain the case; it has worked pretty well so far, and yet even now we have constant problems of people inserting dubious and incorrect information into articles. At least at the moment we have a strong argument for consistently removing information which cannot be verified -- you would remove this check? What benefit could possibly outweigh such a deficit?
FF
On 14/04/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, the verifiability argument doesn't fly at all with me. If you pick information out of an archive, it's most certainly verifiable, someone else can check it out as well. I realise that that is a hassle, but that doesn't change the fact that it is verfiable.
IMHO, verifiability is a scale, not an absolute. Information is not either verifiable or not verifiable. Instead, it can be "easily verifiable", "verifiable with some difficulty" etc.
Steve
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
As long as you don't do analysis, and pick your information straight from the source, document it and be sure other people can see it too, what's the big deal? How is that any different from looking up information on the internet or in a magazine from half a century ago? Especially so if we make them provide a copy of the document.
Providing a copy of a document could open up copyright issues.
Ec