I want to outline my position here, so that there is no misunderstanding, as there seems to be.
1. I am NOT saying that every fact in Wikipedia must be sourced or removed. 2. I am saying that every fact in Wikipedia should be SOURCEABLE. 3. I am not saying that everyone must give their sources whenever they edit. 4. I am saying that we can encourage people to work on a project to find sources for each fact, just like we have encouraged people to fix commas or categorize stubs. 5. I am not saying that people who cannot source should be discouraged from editing. 6. I am saying that we should encourage people to find sources, for their own work and for other's work as well. 7. I am saying that there are many different types of sources, and we should find ways of including them. (BTW, in a previous job I worked extensively with oral histories, which are a wonderful source of information, even if they must always be verified). 7. Finally, I am saying that high quality is NOT something we can compromise.
Danny
- I am NOT saying that every fact in Wikipedia must be sourced or removed.
- I am saying that every fact in Wikipedia should be SOURCEABLE.
- I am not saying that everyone must give their sources whenever they edit.
- I am saying that we can encourage people to work on a project to find
sources for each fact, just like we have encouraged people to fix commas or categorize stubs. 5. I am not saying that people who cannot source should be discouraged from editing. 6. I am saying that we should encourage people to find sources, for their own work and for other's work as well. 7. I am saying that there are many different types of sources, and we should find ways of including them. (BTW, in a previous job I worked extensively with oral histories, which are a wonderful source of information, even if they must always be verified). 7. Finally, I am saying that high quality is NOT something we can compromise.
Danny, I understand what you mean - I understood that even before - many of us will understand this, but many others will not ... and the problem will not be those who understand, but those who do not understand and who apply "rules" in a different way. Do not misunderstand my mail - it shall make people reflect on what might happen.
When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into connection to people editing and adding contents - it must be seen as something separate - many people are not able to "separate" things themselves they will combine and make something different out of all this.
Ciao, Sabine
___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Sabine Cretella wrote:
When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into connection to people editing and adding contents - it must be seen as something separate - many people are not able to "separate" things themselves they will combine and make something different out of all this.
What does this mean? How can citations be separate from adding content? Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from; other people can do nothing but guess.
SJ
When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into connection to people editing and adding contents - it must be seen as something separate - many people are not able to "separate" things themselves they will combine and make something different out of all this.
What does this mean? How can citations be separate from adding content? Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from; other people can do nothing but guess.
No: if I can add things I do - but I must not add anything.
For example: I know loads of stuff because of my job, but I cannot give you a source at once that confirms it - if I must research for that source to contribute I simply will not contribute, since I have only a certain amount of time. Someone else who knows a source that confirms it can add it - otherwise: well you will need to rely on what I learnt during the past 40 years ...
Whoever believes without asking in something written ... well ... if I do a research on a certain topic I do not only believe what is written in one encyclopaedia (take Brockhaus and Treccani - they sometimes differ a bit), but I have a look at other sources as well ... so what I learnt comes out of reading many, many books, letters, questions and answers, e-mails, websites, notes, whitepapers and whatever - all is somewhat related and confirmed. I know that I can rely on it - certainly I am not even able to research again all what I learnt only during the past 10 years (and I am not willing to do it - it would be like saying to a professor: when you give lessons you need to show me where you learnt your lessons and where what you say is confirmed).
Ciao, Sabine
___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it
On 12/3/05, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I want to outline my position here, so that there is no misunderstanding, as there seems to be.
- I am NOT saying that every fact in Wikipedia must be sourced or removed.
- I am saying that every fact in Wikipedia should be SOURCEABLE.
- I am not saying that everyone must give their sources whenever they edit.
- I am saying that we can encourage people to work on a project to find
sources for each fact, just like we have encouraged people to fix commas or categorize stubs. 5. I am not saying that people who cannot source should be discouraged from editing. 6. I am saying that we should encourage people to find sources, for their own work and for other's work as well. 7. I am saying that there are many different types of sources, and we should find ways of including them. (BTW, in a previous job I worked extensively with oral histories, which are a wonderful source of information, even if they must always be verified). 7. Finally, I am saying that high quality is NOT something we can compromise.
Danny
This seems like a reasonable approach... Actually, strike that, it seems like what we already should be doing, in theory -- isn't it already true that every fact must be sourceable? We (myself included) just aren't so good at enforcing it by catching questionable statements and trying to source them.
-Kat [[en:User:Mindspillage]]
-- "There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I want to outline my position here, so that there is no misunderstanding, as there seems to be.
- I am NOT saying that every fact in Wikipedia must be sourced or removed.
- I am saying that every fact in Wikipedia should be SOURCEABLE.
- I am not saying that everyone must give their sources whenever they edit.
- I am saying that we can encourage people to work on a project to find
sources for each fact, just like we have encouraged people to fix commas or categorize stubs. 5. I am not saying that people who cannot source should be discouraged from editing. 6. I am saying that we should encourage people to find sources, for their own work and for other's work as well. 7. I am saying that there are many different types of sources, and we should find ways of including them. (BTW, in a previous job I worked extensively with oral histories, which are a wonderful source of information, even if they must always be verified). 7. Finally, I am saying that high quality is NOT something we can compromise.
That's a very nice bulleted summary of exactly what our policy on sources should be, IMO. =]
-Mark
On 12/9/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I want to outline my position here, so that there is no misunderstanding, as there seems to be.
- I am NOT saying that every fact in Wikipedia must be sourced or removed.
- I am saying that every fact in Wikipedia should be SOURCEABLE.
- I am not saying that everyone must give their sources whenever they edit.
- I am saying that we can encourage people to work on a project to find
sources for each fact, just like we have encouraged people to fix commas or categorize stubs. 5. I am not saying that people who cannot source should be discouraged from editing. 6. I am saying that we should encourage people to find sources, for their own work and for other's work as well. 7. I am saying that there are many different types of sources, and we should find ways of including them. (BTW, in a previous job I worked extensively with oral histories, which are a wonderful source of information, even if they must always be verified). 7. Finally, I am saying that high quality is NOT something we can compromise.
That's a very nice bulleted summary of exactly what our policy on sources should be, IMO. =]
-Mark
Wouldn't it be fair to say that it's a nice bulleted summary of exactly what our policy on sources actually is?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org