[Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Achal Prabhala]

Hallo, (responses inline)

On Thursday 28 July 2011 12:27 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
> Achal I was responding to Thomas not to you.
> However yes, if you are quoting what an interviewee is saying, you should use quotation marks to offset their statements.
> Or even use the blockquote markup for a lengthy quotation.

My own understanding is that this is not a requirement of a print 
article (say, a journal essay or a NYTimes report).

> If you do something like decide that because three people said "King Makambo ruled from 800 to 840" that you can simply state this in an article and cite the video, I would suggest that is a decision not well-founded on our editing principles.
It is therefore not clear why on the oral citations we make (linked to 
the audio interview source) we should therefore do that. Two quick 
clarifications again, because I fear that these are causing some confusion:

1) We don't have any video citations, only oral citations, linked to 
audio interviews.

2) None of the articles created (or in creation) are about things 
related to fictional Kings & Queens in the 9th century AD. In short: 
we're not wading into the murky territory of rewriting events that 
happened 13 centuries ago. I think the distinction is important because 
there is an underlying feeling one gets here - and from a few other 
posts - that somehow this experiment with oral citations opens up the 
opportunity to write fictionalised accounts of the history of the world, 
which would make for good science fiction, which is in itself a good 
thing - but also far above our pay grade. :)


> Citations to primary sources should, in my opinion, always use quotation marks.  And never fail to do so.
>
>
>
While this is a possibility, there is no policy on citation of primary 
sources on Wikipedia. In academia, field work and interviews are often 
paraphrased; they definitely do not have to be reported inside quotes, 
though of course, they may be.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Achal Prabhala<aprabhala at gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:53 am
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
>
> 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
> reated:
> ttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations#Articles.2F_Discussions_.28in_development.29
> you can see exactly how the citations are used. In the articles, each
> tatement that can be attributed to a particular audio interview is
> ited to that audio interview. Do you mean also using quotes for actual
> ords 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
> he content of the cited audio interviews (and the accumulated reports,
> ometimes conflicting, gathered in the course of several audio
> nterviews) in exactly the same way one would do if the sources were
> ournal articles instead.
> But if I haven't understood your questions correctly, please elaborate
> nd explain further.
> Thanks,
> chal
>
>
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Thomas Morton<morton.thomas at googlemail.com>
>   To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<foundation-l at 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
>     research.
>
>     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 to
>     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.
>   Tom
>   ______________________________________________
>   oundation-l mailing list
>   oundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>   nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   foundation-l mailing list
>   foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> oundation-l mailing list
> oundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>