[WikiEN-l] Archives as sources proposal

[Oskar Sigvardsson]

On 4/14/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> Taken at face value, I think that the simple answer to both Oskar and Sean's
> questions is yes, thes are OR.
>
> In the case of Oskar's first question, when you read a book to write a
> summary, or view a film to write a summary, it constitutes OR.  I suppose
> ideally what you should be doing in consulting book or film reviews, and
> using them to construct your own.  Why is it a problem?  For the most part,
> it probably isn't.  Nonetheless, if you are doing more than relating the
> simple facts of the movie, it becomes a creative endeavour, and that isn't a
> good thing.

Honestly, I think that is taking WP:NOR way too far. A book summary is
one of the easiest things to verify, just pick up the book and see for
yourselves. It is easy to spot where there is strict outlining of the
facts, and it is just as easy to see where the author inserts his own
opinion or analysis. For instance, take [[Pride and Prejudice]]. It
contains a long detailed summary of what's in the book. What if we
were to ask for a source that Mr Collins first proposed to Elizabeth
Bennet and, when turned down, asked Charlotte Lucas. The contributor
would probably say "Just read the damn thing and see for yourselves!"
And he'd be right, that is by far the best way, instead of relying on
a third party, which may or may not be entirely trustworthy (and migth
be hard to find).

One can also get all philosophical and say that when you something
from a secondary source, you do the same thing, you analyze and parse
the information and put it in your own words. Infact, besides making
straight-copyvio copies of text, arn't we all breaking WP:NOR by
simply contributing? However, that argument is just plain silly :P

>In the case of the number of wives of a famous person or the birth date of
>Nancy Reagan, if one of us can find the birth or marriage certificates, then
>hopefully so should their biographers.  In the case of Nancy Reagan or
>Jennifer Lopez, it amounts to a WP:V issue - and their press agent isn't a
>reliable source.

First off, does J.Lo even have a biographer? I assume she does, but
it's not like her life is totally over or anything............

Second, you are right, the press agent is not reliable as a source, so
that's why we should go to the birth certificate. What's more accurate
in informing of a birth date than a birth certificate.

>In the case of a discrepancy between what you can find for yourself and what
>the article says - I suppose the place to start is with {{fact}} or
>something stronger.  Obviously, if you have found the marriage certificate,
>why haven't other people?  Or is it that they just aren't famous enough to
>have a real biographer?  I'd say it is problematic.  Personally I wouldn't
>think twice about trusting Sean's veracity - but the truth is, we don't have
>"trusted editors" and in theory, what stands for Sean should stand for any
>anon.

I agree, that's why he should submit a scanned copy of whatever he
finds, and provide detailed information about where he found it. That
way, what stands for Sean, stands for everyone.

>I wouldn't have a huge problem with the examples cited, but any alteration
>of policy would have to be extremely tightly worded.

Yes, I completely agree.

--Oskar