[Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

[Sarah]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Achal Prabhala <aprabhala at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you Tom, and Sarah, for your very helpful explanations - they are
> extremely useful.
>
> There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for instance,
> which highlights some of the interpretive problems you raise:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Oral_Citations
>
> Can I ask you how you would analyse the work of the oral citations project
> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations) in terms of our
> policies on original research, and verifiability?

Hi Achal,

It's difficult to give an off-the-cuff reply to this, because there
are so many variables. But audio interviews published only by Wikinews
have already been used as sources on Wikipedia. For example, I added a
David Shankbone interview with Ingrid Newkirk to her bio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingrid_Newkirk&oldid=473905868#Early_life

And I have used that interview as a source for at least two other
articles that discussed Newkirk's views.

It's a primary source, but it's unproblematic, in terms of NOR,
because it's clearly Ingrid Newkirk (not an imposter), and she isn't
saying anything controversial (e.g. nothing defamatory or factually
contentious). And I wasn't using it in an interpretive way, but purely
descriptively. The only prohibition regarding primary sources is when
they are used interpretively, as though they are secondary sources --
that's where you get into NOR territory.

In terms of the Verifiability policy, that interview might count as
self-published or unpublished, I don't know. But remember -- that
policy requires reliable published sources for material that is
(reasonably) challenged or likely to be challenged. It would be
entirely contrary to the spirit of that policy to object to Ingrid
Newkirk talking about herself non-contentiously in the article about
her. That is, it would not be a reasonable challenge.

So, to answer your question more usefully perhaps, I do not see the
introduction of oral citations into Wikipedia as a major upheaval (so
long as they are recorded in some way and used appropriately), in
terms of the existing policies. And I think they would liven up our
articles considerably if done well.

Sarah