Hallo, (responses inline)
On Thursday 28 July 2011 12:27 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
Achal I was responding to Thomas not to you. However yes, if you are quoting what an interviewee is saying, you should use quotation marks to offset their statements. Or even use the blockquote markup for a lengthy quotation.
My own understanding is that this is not a requirement of a print article (say, a journal essay or a NYTimes report).
If you do something like decide that because three people said "King Makambo ruled from 800 to 840" that you can simply state this in an article and cite the video, I would suggest that is a decision not well-founded on our editing principles.
It is therefore not clear why on the oral citations we make (linked to the audio interview source) we should therefore do that. Two quick clarifications again, because I fear that these are causing some confusion:
1) We don't have any video citations, only oral citations, linked to audio interviews.
2) None of the articles created (or in creation) are about things related to fictional Kings & Queens in the 9th century AD. In short: we're not wading into the murky territory of rewriting events that happened 13 centuries ago. I think the distinction is important because there is an underlying feeling one gets here - and from a few other posts - that somehow this experiment with oral citations opens up the opportunity to write fictionalised accounts of the history of the world, which would make for good science fiction, which is in itself a good thing - but also far above our pay grade. :)
Citations to primary sources should, in my opinion, always use quotation marks. And never fail to do so.
While this is a possibility, there is no policy on citation of primary sources on Wikipedia. In academia, field work and interviews are often paraphrased; they definitely do not have to be reported inside quotes, though of course, they may be.
-----Original Message----- From: Achal Prabhalaaprabhala@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:53 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
Hallo, (responses inline) On Wednesday 27 July 2011 11:57 PM, Wjhonson wrote: For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly. Then you will never be using original research. I don't actually understand what this means. If you look at the articles reated: ttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations#Articles.2F_Discussions_.28in_development.29 you can see exactly how the citations are used. In the articles, each tatement that can be attributed to a particular audio interview is ited to that audio interview. Do you mean also using quotes for actual ords in the text of the article itself?
You are going the next step and summarizing and interpreting. Don't do that.
Actually, no. We are not summarizing or interpreting, merely reporting he content of the cited audio interviews (and the accumulated reports, ometimes conflicting, gathered in the course of several audio nterviews) in exactly the same way one would do if the sources were ournal articles instead. But if I haven't understood your questions correctly, please elaborate nd explain further. Thanks, chal
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Mortonmorton.thomas@googlemail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:19 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research" Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims made from yourself as the source. Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original research. Ideally of course, yes. However it is quite hard to work with primaryources of this nature (i.e. ones that are not summarising a subject) and void interpretation (which is at the core of OR). It is perfectly possible o cite an iron clad reliable source and still end up doing original esearch :) It's just that the risk is greater with these forms of sources.
I don't really get by the way, why this is considered revolutionary. These aren't "oral citations" in the standard sense, these are citations to a published video.eliability depends on a number of factors; for a video it depends on things ike the identity of the person speaking, the publishing body, etc. Raw footage of this sort is very much primary sourcing ith potential reliability problems. The key thing for reliable sources is the idea of *fact checking or peer eview*. This is why the very best sorts of sources are those published in espected scientific journals - because they have been reviewed for istakes, bias, etc. Ideally these videos would be published as a primary resource, interested arties would synthesise material and write papers (or give lectures, or ublish a book) - secondary sources - which could then be cited by tertiary ources, such as us :) Currently you would have to treat these videos with a modicum of care, under he usual guidelines for primary source material. Tom ______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l