[WikiEN-l] WP and Deep Web, was Re: Age fabrication and original research

[stevertigo]

phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> *cough* librarians? *cough*
> anyway, the way the page above is framed betrays the assumption that
> finding sources is a much more clear-cut process than it is,
> and that the only expertise required in neutrally evaluating a wide range of
> texts about a particular (often obscure) topic is access to a
> particular database of articles.

Hm. May I also "betray the assumption" that we may want some input
from those experienced in using some particular copyright access
search engine? I mean, "clear-cut process" may it may not be.
Searching through piles of books is certainly never easy, but are you
saying that searching *cough* online databases of digitized text isn't
any easier? I have to assume good faith, that people can in a certain
way act online in a "librarian"-like capacity, or else learn by their
mistakes how to do so.

> Which is not to say that I wouldn't love to see a broad network of people
> who love to work on sourcing problems, much in the same way we have a > broad network of copyeditors and speedy-deleters.
> Perhaps trying to reinvigorate WikiProject Fact & Reference Check would > be a good idea.

You appear to be involved at Project:Resource Exchange, which looks
like its well on the right track, even though it also seems to be
somewhat inactive. I and others might have a few ideas for how to
tweak that project a little bit, and get it up and running. Some of
the same points I've made above about availability and private
communications are the obvious requirements -- open availability,
private requests, code of conduct (works both ways), private returns.

The thing I suggest is to nuke Project:Librarians (which you also
appear to be involved with) and merge those people into
Project:Resources (note, move WP:LIB to ~Project:Resources). The
reason being is that such a well-qualified group of people needs an
actual purpose. WP:LIB/WP:REX seem like just that.

Also, these people obviously need a name. And "librarians" just might
work, assuming that this new meaning can be integrated, or else the
other meaning deprecated.

> It's also worth noting with many commercial library databases that
> it's the act of doing the search and viewing abstracts that is
> restricted by license, not just any full-text that may be attached.

Yeah, but private sharing of full copies can also be allowed, and
different companies have their own rules, etc. There also may be trust
issues at some point too, but nothing that honest (AGF) people can't
handle.

-Stevertigo
"Had to listen, had no choice..