Andre Wrote:
Reacting on Stephen Gilbert's "possible bug report", I went through searching for other pages that also contain w: links. As such I got to [[Wikipedia:Cite your sources]]. And from the page talk it seems that everyone but 24 agreed with it at the time. Nowadays I see _noone_ citing sources on a regular basis (or even an irregular basis). Would it not be time to remove this 'Rule to consider', or else at least change the 'Talk' page such that it is clear that it is not a majority opinion nowadays?
Wikipedia and "cite your sources" have an uncomfortable history. AFAIK, it's mostly a tool used against minority opinions, esp. left-wing ones. I've used it myself on occasion, and had it used against me. I can understand why no one cites sources for e.g. the value of pi or the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, but if we're going to update the policy, we should first think hard about whether we want to admit that we value sources most when something in the article challenges our own inherent assumptions. It takes the work off us and puts it on the person making claims we disbelieve. That's valuable, I guess, since in some regards it's a bar against original research, and wikipedia is not a place for original research. But the result is also that it tends to favor mainstream views, and NPOV is still imperfectly applied at wikipedia. Personally, I would like to see articles on e.g. green criticisms of capitalism, communist criticisms of socialism, etc., provided they are done from the NPOV. Of course doing it would not be easy, and not necessarily be anything I wanted to take part in.
Personally, I'm quite certain that we've often used "cite your sources" as a means to silence minority opinions. (But, really, 24 was left of me politically and I was in the chorus asking for sources so I'm just another hypocrite). :-/
There may be other (more legitimate) reasons for valuing sources most in controversial articles, and if so, we should state them: everything "aboveboard," as it were. Certainly the policy needs to be revamped.
kq
Andre Wrote:
Reacting on Stephen Gilbert's "possible bug report", I went through searching for other pages that also contain w: links. As such I got to [[Wikipedia:Cite your sources]]. And from the page talk it seems that everyone but 24 agreed with it at the time. Nowadays I see _noone_ citing sources on a regular basis (or even an irregular basis). Would it not be time to remove this 'Rule to consider', or else at least change the 'Talk' page such that it is clear that it is not a majority opinion nowadays?
Wikipedia and "cite your sources" have an uncomfortable history. AFAIK, it's mostly a tool used against minority opinions, esp. left-wing ones. I've used it myself on occasion, and had it used against me. I can understand why no one cites sources for e.g. the value of pi or the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, but if we're going to update the policy, we should first think hard about whether we want to admit that we value sources most when something in the article challenges our own inherent assumptions. It takes the work off us and puts it on the person making claims we disbelieve. That's valuable, I guess, since in some regards it's a bar against original research, and wikipedia is not a place for original research. But the result is also that it tends to favor mainstream views, and NPOV is still imperfectly applied at wikipedia. Personally, I would like to see articles on e.g. green criticisms of capitalism, communist criticisms of socialism, etc., provi! ded they are done from the NPOV. Of course doing it would not be easy, and not necessarily be anything I wanted to take part in.
Personally, I'm quite certain that we've often used "cite your sources" as a means to silence minority opinions. (But, really, 24 was left of me politically and I was in the chorus asking for sources so I'm just another hypocrite). :-/
There may be other (more legitimate) reasons for valuing sources most in controversial articles, and if so, we should state them: everything "aboveboard," as it were. Certainly the policy needs to be revamped.
kq
When I wrote [[Great Salt Lake]] I got most of the facts out of an issue of High Country News. I put that down at the bottom of the page, but for my trouble got a rather persistant inquiry as to whether I had copied the article from there, i.e. wasn't this a copyright violation and had to spend time saying no, I had just extracted the facts from there. Then they removed the information that that was the source of the information. So I kind of got out of the habit after that. That's kind of petty since information on Great Salt Lake is kind of common. Now, especially if I work from a book I just put it in '''Further Reading'''. It would help in lots of cases for checking information if we all did get into the habit of citing sources though. Sometimes it can be kind of ephemeral like a NPR interview, but even then at least one might know.
Fred
At 07:16 AM 10/2/02 -0700, Fred Bauder wrote:
When I wrote [[Great Salt Lake]] I got most of the facts out of an issue of High Country News. I put that down at the bottom of the page, but for my trouble got a rather persistant inquiry as to whether I had copied the article from there, i.e. wasn't this a copyright violation and had to spend time saying no, I had just extracted the facts from there. T
If you'd said "based on information from High Country News", I'd have known what you meant in the first place. And it was only a "persistent inquiry" because copyright violation is our big no-no and you ignored my first query.
hen they removed the information that that was the source of the information. So I kind of got out of the habit after that. That's kind of petty since information on Great Salt Lake is kind of common. Now, especially if I work from a book I just put it in '''Further Reading'''. It would help in lots of cases for checking information if we all did get into the habit of citing sources though. Sometimes it can be kind of ephemeral like a NPR interview, but even then at least one might know.
In general, I think this is a good use for Talk pages.
--- Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org wrote:
In general, I think this is a good use for Talk pages.
I disagree: sources are a vital part of the article and should not be hidden away in an area that most readers will never find. I think of Talk as short term discussions aimed at improving an article, not as a depository of meta information. If all Talk pages are deleted tomorrow, the encyclopedia should still be self-contained and complete.
Sources are extremely useful information; it's impossible to evaluate material without sources. Why would we possibly hide that information from readers?
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
At 08:55 AM 10/2/02 -0700, you wrote:
--- Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org wrote:
In general, I think this is a good use for Talk pages.
I disagree: sources are a vital part of the article and should not be hidden away in an area that most readers will never find. I think of Talk as short term discussions aimed at improving an article, not as a depository of meta information. If all Talk pages are deleted tomorrow, the encyclopedia should still be self-contained and complete.
Sources are extremely useful information; it's impossible to evaluate material without sources. Why would we possibly hide that information from readers?
I was thinking of notes like "this is based on an article from X paper" or "I googled and found a few sites", when the specific article or sites aren't given, not references to books or research papers.
Quoting Axel Boldt axelboldt@yahoo.com:
--- Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org wrote:
In general, I think this is a good use for Talk pages.
I disagree: sources are a vital part of the article and should not be hidden away in an area that most readers will never find. I think of Talk as short term discussions aimed at improving an article, not as a depository of meta information. If all Talk pages are deleted tomorrow, the encyclopedia should still be self-contained and complete.
Sources are extremely useful information; it's impossible to evaluate material without sources. Why would we possibly hide that information from readers?
Axel
I tend to agree -
It seems that the bottom line is who are your users (or who would you like them to be) and the goals of wikipedia. If I know that Axel does impeccable research and in an expert in the field of biometrics, then I may be satisfied - but the casual user or the user that comes in via Google doesn't know Axel & may not be able to evaluate/use the information.
If you want wikipedia to be primarily a source for information on popular culture - (and there is nothing wrong with that) - then you probably don't need a lot of sources - that information is readily available from a variety of sources. If you want any kind of scholarly (perhaps credible is a better word) reputation then you have to give sources -
It's hard for me to get excited about the particular format - so long as I can find the source.
Plus - there are contributors who take it as a personal insult to be asked for sources - perhaps if it were a general requirement, some of the ruffled feathers syndrome might be avoided.
bob
|From: Axel Boldt axelboldt@yahoo.com |Sender: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com |Reply-To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com |Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 08:55:25 -0700 (PDT) | | |--- Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org wrote: | |> In general, I think this is a good use for Talk pages. | |I disagree: sources are a vital part of the article and should not be |hidden away in an area that most readers will never find. I think of |Talk as short term discussions aimed at improving an article, not as a |depository of meta information. If all Talk pages are deleted tomorrow, |the encyclopedia should still be self-contained and complete. | |Sources are extremely useful information; it's impossible to evaluate |material without sources. Why would we possibly hide that information |from readers? | |Axel |
If a book is heavily used, it should be listed under ==Further Reading==. Likewise, if a web site is important, it sould be given under ==External Links==. Depending on the value of the source, it could also be given in the test of the article itself, if it's that relevant.
On the other hand, it isn't a bad thing to list random, regular sources like the 1911 britannica on the talk page for guidance of future writers without being compulsive about it.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org