Leave the use of historical sources to historians, and then cite from their books. That's what historians are for. Kind regards Ziko
2012/2/24 Florence Devouard <[email protected]>: > On 2/23/12 7:29 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday 23 February 2012 01:10 AM, Thomas Morton wrote: >>> >>> Splitting this off, Achal, I hope that's OK :) >>> >>> 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<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Oral_Citations> >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for the pointer there; I'll try and place some comments in there >>> later. It is certainly an interesting discussion. >>> >>> But here are some initial thoughts (please bear in mind I have only >>> scanned >>> that discussion, and whilst I have had an ongoing interest in the oral >>> citations project I never dug into in too much depth). Also remember this >>> is based on my interpretation of our policies, so others may well differ! >>> >>> >>>> Can I ask you how you would analyse the work of the oral citations >>>> project >>>> >>>> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Research:Oral_Citations<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations>) >>>> >>>> in terms of our policies on original research, and verifiability? >>>> >>> The best way I can address this is to lay out my thoughts on our sourcing >>> policy. >>> >>> Material on Wikipedia can be divided into "fact" and "opinion". The >>> latter >>> of these is, perhaps confusingly, the simplest to address; because >>> opinion, >>> viewpoints and perception can quite easily be collated and summarised. >>> The >>> only real difficulty exists in figuring out which opinions are noteworthy >>> to record. >>> >>> The problem is facts; as I am sure everyone can appreciate, facts are >>> very >>> easy to get wrong (maliciously or not). This is especially a problem in >>> History where events can be pieced together via all manner of sources. >>> Even >>> WW2 history can differ dramatically depending on the accounts you read - >>> some overuse oral citation (humans are fallible) and others misuse >>> official >>> records (which can range from faked through to inaccurate). >>> >>> The problem with primary sourcing of the oral form is that it comes >>> directly from an individual - with all of their perceptions and >>> biases. To >>> make an extreme example out of this; imagine taking an oral citation from >>> Hitler, and a Jew in a concentration camp. Such citations would, I >>> imagine, >>> give radically different viewpoints of the Holocaust. Obviously other >>> accounts, by third parties, show us which account is accurate - but if we >>> had only those two viewpoints I hope it is obvious how >>> difficult separating fact and fiction could be (ignoring that any >>> rational >>> person would see the obvious). >> >> >> Of course. So, for the oral citations project, we specifically chose >> topics that are in the present, that are seen and done by thousands of >> people (i.e. not obscure), and that are also as uncontroversial as >> possible. Examples: village games, temple rituals, recipes. >> >> >>> >>> So that brings us to the ideas behind sourcing; which is that we should >>> consider not only the material but author and publisher. This is >>> important >>> because if the author of the source is partisan to the material then you >>> have to consider they may be biased to their viewpoint. As less extreme >>> example might be two citations from a Republican and a Democrat. Both say >>> "My Party is the Best because our policies are..." - you can't use either >>> source to say one party is better, because they are partisan. But you >>> could >>> use it to relate their parties policies; and as partisans they are well >>> positioned to relate those policies! >>> >>> If the author is a third party, of course, that lends weight to their >>> material. >>> >>> The publisher is the stumbling block in this case; because it is a >>> non-expert [sic] researcher uploading material to Commons. What could >>> mitigate this is a detailed description of the methodology used to >>> collect >>> the citations, which would allow editors to review it for problems. >>> >>> One final thing to consider is that WP:V talks about controversial or >>> challenged material. Whilst that might be a risk policy on the face (it >>> would be easy to present something non-controversial but also not true as >>> fact) it's critical to letting us actually write article (otherwise we >>> would be stifled in citations :)). For example; I've sourced material to >>> personal sites before with minimal problems - sometimes it is questioned >>> and what I usually say is "If you can show someone saying the >>> opposite, or >>> make a sensible argument against, then lets remove it". (FWIW, and >>> this is >>> an aside, I think is relaxed form to building articles is a Good >>> Thing, and >>> we should do it more often - worrying about being wrong is stifling). >>> >>> So now I've picked it apart here is my thinking; Oral citations on >>> Commons >>> could be excellent sources in the right context. >> >> >> :) >> >> >>> >>> Sure if the material is disputed or otherwise problematic then it is >>> better >>> to look for a source that has peer review. But for simplistic, factual >>> things then I think it is rock solid. One example that comes to mind >>> (and I >>> don't know if the Oral citations covers this sort of thing) is this: I >>> was >>> recently on holiday in New Zealand. They have excellent museums there, >>> fanatically maintained (which is amazing compared to most countries...). >>> One nice feature is that a lot of the Mauri history exhibits have audio >>> from those of Mauri ancestory describing some cultural fact or other. >>> Things like recipes. >> >> >> >> Yes, we encountered exactly this. When looking for aspects of everyday >> life that people both widely knew about and did in India and South >> Africa, but were also undocumented in scholarship or even print, >> everything we had came back to 'culture'. >> >> >>> Something like that is an excellent oral citation; the author is >>> authoritative (being Mauri) and the content uncontroversial. >>> >>> Boiled down, I think that oral citations have a distinct place as a >>> source >>> - and we should encourage people to consider them as sources when >>> writing. >>> But they are not something you could, for example, base an entire article >>> around. We should also explore ways to make them more "reliable", and >>> more >>> usable. For example making them obviously available to experts in the >>> field >>> they cover. >> >> >> >> I agree that an article wholly based on oral citations is less desirable >> than an article that mixes traditional and non-traditional sources. Two >> things here though: (a) There are actually a pretty large number of >> things that are both widely known and done and not documented in print, >> so this is a real problem; and in these cases, having articles solely >> based on oral citations could still be useful, akin to a stub, awaiting >> further refinement. (b) Though this is not directly related to the >> conversation, it does relate to earlier points made by Sarah and you >> regarding primary sources. It is sometimes hard to separate fact from >> opinion within the oral citation - which is to say, X person's fact may >> be Y person's opinion, etc. - and in my opinion, even the cleanest set >> of facts gleamed from an oral citation will contain some perspective or >> opinion. I don't see that as a problem (and this is regardless of how it >> would parse through the OR policy) as long as the perspective is >> attributed as just that, or even challenged. We encountered this, and >> recorded it - in articles on village games in Limpopo in South Africa. >> The older ladies we spoke to said young people didn't play the games >> they had just shown us, and the young people we spoke to said they did, >> but with a slightly different template, and we recorded and reported it >> exactly as said, as two conflicting perspectives. (Would that be a >> responsible use of primary sources? I think so.) >> >> >>> >>> It *is* important to get secondary coverage of a topic, because we are >>> tertiary source. This is the core idea of our primary source policy; >>> if we >>> utilise primary material and research something to the extent that we are >>> the main authoritative source that becomes *hugely* problematic! >>> >>> And further, how these policies might apply to the idea of social >>> media, as >>>> >>>> well as more private archives, say, corporate archives, being used as >>>> citations? (And on that point, is there a difference between the the >>>> Native >>>> American folk archive at the Smithsonian and the corporate archives >>>> of the >>>> Michelin corporation in France, for our purposes?) >>>> >>> Corporate archives I would deal with in the same way as any primary >>> source; >>> use it to cite facts, bear in mind the author/publisher. WP:SPS talks >>> about >>> being wary of unduly self-serving material, and I think that is an >>> excellent way of putting the approach to corporate archives. >> >> >> >> I had an interesting discussion on this with Florence and Christophe, so >> I'll share this with them if they miss it here. My own first instinct is >> to trust a self-avowedly 'neutral' source (like the Smithsonian) more >> than a corporation (like Michelin) but for our purposes, it doesn't seem >> to make much sense to treat them any differently. > > > Bear with me, I'd love it if the Michelin Corp was opening its archives :) > But having worked for them and living in the city of their headquarters, > their discretion and love of confidentiality is such that I doubt it will > happen :( > > The situation is complex. Should corp archives be somehow trusted or not > much or not at all. I would say "it depends". > It depends on the company (reputation). > It depends largely of which department produced the archives. Docs produced > by marketing departments should be taken with a HUGE pinch of salt. The > language is non neutral, they conveniently drop the embarassing facts, and > they tend to forget to put basic stuff such as dates ("ok, it is written you > produce 10 millions yoghurt, but when was that ?") or references to > countries ("ok, you write that you sell 10 millions of yoghurt in Global > South, but can you better define which Global South you are talking about > ?") (yeah, true stories even if figures are invented). > > Docs produced by departments of research or finances, I would put a lot of > trust in them. There is always the bad luck to stumble on a cheating company > just as it also happens that Museum Staff host a black sheep from time to > time. But generally, I consider information out of these departments quite > safe. > > But the most difficult ennoying point is simply that most corp archives > appear to be a mess. Because companies are bought and sold, information is > lost on the way. Because of poor communication between departments. Because > staff come and go. And because the acceleration of business processes > unfortunately make it so that in the past dozen of years, less and less time > and money has been spent (invested) on a proper archive system, on good > procedures and efficient implementation. So when you ask "can you retrieve > the past 20 years of sales regarding this yoghurt", you'll get a blank > stare. Truth is, no one knows the date and no one knows where to find the > info. > > Some companies sometimes hire external services (private historians) to > "clean up" their archives and some good stuff can get out of this, such as a > book or a museum (Michelin did that. Do visit the museum > http://www.aventure-michelin.com/ if you happen to come. It is very nicely > done). > > Usually, I recommand good sense. If the information does not appear "weird" > or "controversial" at all, I use the corp information as "trusted source". > If it is clearly misleading or potentially illegal info, I trash it. But in > between there is room to accept the data as long as there is another source, > that may not be so great but that appears independant. For large companies, > there are usually independant sources. But for most medium size companies, > not. I give the situation a certain degree of tolerance. > > Difficult to put that into any sort of policy except for "good sense". > > Florence > >>> >>> In terms of social media, this is tricky. Because social media is vastly >>> more accessible than other mediums - particularly to hacks. Wordpress >>> blogs >>> are trivial to make, for example, and you can sound authoritative or >>> convincing on a subject to a layman with only medium effort. I'd treat >>> these with more caution. >>> >>> Phew, that was dumped out in a stream of conciousness way - so it >>> might be >>> a bit "buggy". But that's what I figure :) >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> (Just as a note; I consider "publisher" quite broadly - i.e. the >>> person who >>> hosts or maintains the material) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> foundation-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ ----------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
