SJ 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.
Why does it matter where it came from? Except in cases where you're dealing with a primary source and it's essential to check the original, the choice of sources is just as subject to editing as the content. If I add content and cite a pathetically bad source, the source does not need to stay in the article even if it happens to be right (if it happens to be wrong and represents a significant point of view might be another matter). Other people can find other and often better sources even if they're unable to determine what the initial source was, and if the case involves a primary source then the information inherently points to where you need to look.
Many people don't seem to understand this and think there's some kind of rule that once a source has been used in the writing of an article, it must be cited or preserved in a References section for all time. Even normal scholarly practice doesn't require this (else probably most Wikipedia articles would need to cite other Wikipedia articles as references), and we in particular should be able to get past such limited ways of thinking. One of the virtues of our collaborative system is that there is very little need to try and divine the intent of an original author, and we needn't be beholden to that person in terms of choosing sources either.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
SJ 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.
Why does it matter where it came from? Except in cases where you're dealing with a primary source and it's essential to check the original, the choice of sources is just as subject to editing as the content. If I add content and cite a pathetically bad source, the source does not need to stay in the article even if it happens to be right (if it happens to be wrong and represents a significant point of view might be another matter). Other people can find other and often better sources even if they're unable to determine what the initial source was, and if the case involves a primary source then the information inherently points to where you need to look.
Many people don't seem to understand this and think there's some kind of rule that once a source has been used in the writing of an article, it must be cited or preserved in a References section for all time. Even normal scholarly practice doesn't require this (else probably most Wikipedia articles would need to cite other Wikipedia articles as references), and we in particular should be able to get past such limited ways of thinking. One of the virtues of our collaborative system is that there is very little need to try and divine the intent of an original author, and we needn't be beholden to that person in terms of choosing sources either.
On the contrary, any published books, such as.... Encyclopaedia Britannica, has every single one of the its facts checked against each individual source. This is a requirement of the publisher, and of the company. They don't make their sources public, so we have to trust them, but because they have checked each fact, it is usually alright to trust them. We, on the other hand, by default are accepting new information without any sources.
By listing our sources, we will become more trusted than even Encyclopaedia Britannica, who, though sourcing all their facts, doesn't make their sources public.
As for the often-repeated "anyone can fake a source" or "this will put a false trust in sources".... Please stop and think about how ridiculous this statement is, for the simple reason that: before you can even check the validity of a source, you need that source to be listed. You can't check the validity of unsourced information unless you go out and find sources for it. Listing sources does that job for you, but the sources still need to be checked for validity. That is the job of the reader who wants to know if he can trust our information.
Please, everyone, stop this paranoia. Any scheme that would involve _visually_ identifying unsourced information would be a SETTING that users can turn on or off.
Brian wrote:
On the contrary, any published books, such as.... Encyclopaedia Britannica, has every single one of the its facts checked against each individual source. This is a requirement of the publisher, and of the company.
This is an interesting statement. What sources do you have for your description of how the editors of EB work? Has this been documented in public?
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Brian wrote:
On the contrary, any published books, such as.... Encyclopaedia Britannica, has every single one of the its facts checked against each individual source. This is a requirement of the publisher, and of the company.
This is an interesting statement. What sources do you have for your description of how the editors of EB work? Has this been documented in public?
Danny originally brought this fact up because he is writing a reference book as part of a series of books to be published. Every single one of the statements he made in the book had to have a source. He said it took several months for every one of his facts to be checked against every single source. This is how it works in the world of publishing. We have simply side-stepped this out of laziness, in my opinion.
Brian wrote:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Brian wrote:
On the contrary, any published books, such as.... Encyclopaedia Britannica, has every single one of the its facts checked against each individual source. This is a requirement of the publisher, and of the company.
This is an interesting statement. What sources do you have for your description of how the editors of EB work? Has this been documented in public?
Danny originally brought this fact up because he is writing a reference book as part of a series of books to be published. Every single one of the statements he made in the book had to have a source. He said it took several months for every one of his facts to be checked against every single source. This is how it works in the world of publishing. We have simply side-stepped this out of laziness, in my opinion.
It's great that you trust Danny, but some would think that using another Wikipedian as a reference source is not a good idea. Now we just need to bug Danny about his source for the specific question that was asked. Good references need to be traceable.
Ec
Brian wrote:
On the contrary, any published books, such as.... Encyclopaedia Britannica, has every single one of the its facts checked against each individual source. This is a requirement of the publisher, and of the company.
This is an interesting statement. What sources do you have for your description of how the editors of EB work? Has this been documented in public?
Danny originally brought this fact up because he is writing a reference book as part of a series of books to be published. Every single one of the statements he made in the book had to have a source. He said it took several months for every one of his facts to be checked against every single source. This is how it works in the world of publishing. We have simply side-stepped this out of laziness, in my opinion.
So is Danny working for Encyclopaedia Britannica? And did they require *him* to source every sentence because they didn't trust *him* or do you know (from where?) that they require the same of every author?
You are right now arguing that it is necessary to source every fact, and then you are doing sweeping generalizations like this?! I'm not trusting your insight into the editorial principles of Encyclopaedia Britannica or indeed any other (printed) encyclopedia and thus I'm asking you to provide some sources.
Brian wrote:
Danny originally brought this fact up because he is writing a reference book as part of a series of books to be published. Every single one of the statements he made in the book had to have a source. He said it took several months for every one of his facts to be checked against every single source. This is how it works in the world of publishing. We have simply side-stepped this out of laziness, in my opinion.
This may happen with some higher-profile and better-funded works, but I'm also an academic, and I'm quite certain that this isn't normal practice. I know for a fact that MIT Press does not hire CS and Engineering experts to meticulously review every line of the books they publish, for example, and even with textbooks quality-control is often directed primarily by the author (this is part of why there are *always* lengthy lists of errata discovered within a week of a new textbook's release). Even journal peer-review is often much more spot-checking than one might think, with the exception of a few very high-profile (and well-funded) journals like _Nature_ and _Science_.
-Mark
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org