So you wish to claim that you can make factual statements, based on oral interviews which are primary sources.
I find that position troubling. I would suggest, should you actually present such a theory at our policy pages, you'd find strong opposition to this unique perspective.
Our policy does not mimic the policy of a print journal. Wikipedia is not a secondary source in that sense. It has rather been described as a "tertiary" source. Encyclopedias in a general sense summarize and interpret multiple secondary sources with some primary source as well.
However this appears to be a leap that we should not make, IMHO. I don't think requiring the use of quotations when you are quoting is much of a leap. I do think, presenting facts, conclusions and positions based on a few data points only is irregular.
-----Original Message----- From: Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 12:09 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
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 uotation 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 rticle (say, a journal essay or a NYTimes report).
If you do something like decide that because three people said "King Makambo
uled from 800 to 840" that you can simply state this in an article and cite the ideo, I would suggest that is a decision not well-founded on our editing rinciples. t is therefore not clear why on the oral citations we make (linked to he audio interview source) we should therefore do that. Two quick larifications again, because I fear that these are causing some confusion: 1) We don't have any video citations, only oral citations, linked to udio interviews. 2) None of the articles created (or in creation) are about things elated to fictional Kings & Queens in the 9th century AD. In short: e're not wading into the murky territory of rewriting events that appened 13 centuries ago. I think the distinction is important because here is an underlying feeling one gets here - and from a few other osts - that somehow this experiment with oral citations opens up the pportunity to write fictionalised accounts of the history of the world, hich would make for good science fiction, which is in itself a good hing - but also far above our pay grade. :)
Citations to primary sources should, in my opinion, always use quotation arks. And never fail to do so.
hile this is a possibility, there is no policy on citation of primary ources on Wikipedia. In academia, field work and interviews are often araphrased; they definitely do not have to be reported inside quotes, hough 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 ade 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 primary ources 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 o 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
_______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l