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

[Achal Prabhala]

On Thursday 23 February 2012 12:58 AM, Sarah wrote:
> 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 self-published or unpublished, I don't know.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.


Thanks Sarah - this is very interesting, and I too think that a mix of 
traditional and non-traditional citations make for a very good package. 
Andrew and Castelo Branco brought up the idea of using Wikinews as a 
publisher for interviews that form the basis of oral citations rather 
than Commons - taking advantage of its policy on OR. And Andrew further 
suggested reinventing Wikinews into a Nat-Geo style feature news site on 
an earlier thread.


>
> Sarah
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>