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
you can see exactly how the citations are used. In the articles, each
statement that can be attributed to a particular audio interview is
cited to that audio interview. Do you mean also using quotes for actual
words 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
the content of the cited audio interviews (and the accumulated reports,
sometimes conflicting, gathered in the course of several audio
interviews) in exactly the same way one would do if the sources were
journal articles instead.
But if I haven't understood your questions correctly, please elaborate
and explain further.
From: Thomas Morton<morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<foundation-l(a)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
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
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.
oundation-l mailing list
foundation-l mailing list