When we have a document signed by the king saying someone was given a certain title; and a myriad of secondary and tertiary sources saying the document says otherwise (without ever quoting the document itself), I would not have the least doubt in choosing the king's deed. That's a recurrent situation in History, and as far as I know, the recommendations are always to ignore the secondary sources when some unexplained conflict between them and the primary, original sources arises.
Paulo
2018-05-12 13:31 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as factual.
Todd
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
reliable
than any secondary sources quoting it.
As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
be
used instead of a primary source in those situations.
Paulo
2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
:
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and
have
similar problems. You will have to clarify: In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
sources
produced by the subject? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original
sources,
as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this
confusion
in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
use
primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those
are
generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are
typically
sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion.
My
personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability
and
notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
include
far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second
guessing
sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing"
a
reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd
ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing,
not
"correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by
anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is
doomed
to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
of
> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
> requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith
are
things
> that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
> record and proof of identity. > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not
see
it
as
> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as
a
reliable
> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
the
> credibility we have. > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> Behalf Of Gnangarra > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These
culture
manage
> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
is
how
do > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we
respect
them,
> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently
do
is
not
> the only. > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
from
> books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider
and
value
> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share
the
sum
of
all > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts. > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
> knowledge streams > > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Hi, > > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
member > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
> movement > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid,
which I
> personally > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our
personal
> impressions. > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > > peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> > > escribió: > > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us
to
produce
> > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those
constraints
opens
the > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open > to > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
> Other > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
not
be
> > open > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > > Cheers, > > > Peter > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of
"knowledge"
as
> Wikipedia > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
saying > > that > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
> enough, > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
of
> > > knowledge. > > > > > > JP > > > User:Amqui > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
org>
> > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but
will
never
be > > able > > > > to correct it." > > > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> > will > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias > > > issues > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest
than
full
> > > correction > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= unsubscribe > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > --- > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > > > > > -- > GN. > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
> Order > here > < > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again- reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8 > > > . > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe