The policy referred to is Wikipedia policy -- do not use Wikipedia as a source for new or existing Wikipedia articles. Not do not use Wikipedia articles as a source for ANYTHING.
Top level guidelines are also to exercise common sense.... On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:02 AM Paul S. Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > You're welcome, Kathleen, > > It is frustrating, but but WP is not yet EB. > > Paul > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:59 PM Paul S. Wilson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Wikipedia POLICY > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:54 PM Paul S. Wilson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Not "individual practices"; this is an English Wikipedia Policy: > > > > > > >Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or > Wikipedias in other languages) as sources. Also, do not use websites that > mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from > Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered > reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that > these sources support the content, then use them directly.[11] (There is > also a risk of circular reference/circular reporting when using a Wikipedia > article or derivative work as a source.) > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:24 PM Kathleen DeLaurenti > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all - > > > > > > > > Thanks for the responses. Regardless of our individual practices, I > don't see any good coming from Wikipedia positively asserting that it > should "never be cited," and that's the crux of my concern here. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Kathleen > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 1:17 PM Paul S. Wilson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> I have never considered user-generated content on Wikipedia to be > more than what librarians call a "discovery service". > > > >> > > > >> Briefly skimming an article on a subject l may know little about, I > invariably evaluate the sources rather than the text and hit the cited > references. In my 15-year experience, even the weakest and most apparently > biased articles have at least a few refs that lead to citable sources and > larger literature. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 11:54 AM Merrilee Proffitt < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Hi, > > > >>> > > > >>> I completely agree with Kathleen. I would assert that it is a lack > of nuance around the nature of information sources and the research task at > hand that has lead educators and others to wholesale "ban" the use of > Wikipedia. > > > >>> > > > >>> Whether or not a source can be utilized in a research context > depends on the researcher, and what information they are supporting with > the citation. For my middle school daughter doing some investigation on an > element in the periodic table (as she has been doing this week), the > Wikipedia English article (or any encyclopedia article) is appropriate for > her. For a graduate student in chemistry this would not be appropriate, but > the grad student might (appropriately) cite Wikipedia for some basic > definitional stuff, just as they might cite a dictionary or something > similar. You see Wikipedia utilized appropriately in citations all the time > -- why would we discourage this? > > > >>> > > > >>> Having conversations about the veracity of online information is > tough. Wikipedia can be challenging because articles are at various levels > of development. To my mind, this makes it something that those of us > engaged in conversations around information literacy should steer towards, > rather than away from, because a) Wikipedia is widely utilized in a variety > of contexts and b) it is a great teaching tool for talking about when you > can trust information online and when you should steer clear. But saying > "no" to any information source without having a discussion about it seems > lazy. It definitely does not reflect the type of discourse we should be > having, especially now. > > > >>> > > > >>> I look forward to more discussion on this topic. > > > >>> > > > >>> Merrilee > > > >>> > > > >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:02 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Twitter doesn't facilitate reasoned arguments. I suppose as usual > the > > > >>>> goal was to encourage greater use of the references and other > > > >>>> meta-content of Wikipedia articles, which are excellent tools for > > > >>>> critical thinking. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Federico > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Kathleen DeLaurenti, 26/09/19 17:55: > > > >>>> > Hi all - > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > As a librarian who uses and supports Wikipedia, I wanted to > bring up > > > >>>> > some issues around the BuzzFeed article posted today about > M-Journal > > > >>>> > that has led to some messaging from the WikipediaUK twitter > account that > > > >>>> > I find concerning. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate > place to > > > >>>> > bring this up, but I wasn't sure where else to reach out. > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > For those who missed, a citation cite is not manufacturing > journal > > > >>>> > articles if a student submits a Wiki article so that it looks > like an > > > >>>> > "official" citation in their school research papers. > > > >>>> > > https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/wikipedia-fake-academic-journal?bftw&utm_term=4ldqpfp#4ldqpfp > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > Clearly there are some nefarious potential uses here, but > what's more > > > >>>> > concerning is that the WikiUK twitter account has come forward > > > >>>> > forcefully saying that Wikipedia shouldn't be cited in the > literature. > > > >>>> > Period. > > > >>>> > https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1177215917534711808 > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > I work very hard to improve the cite through my courses and > academic > > > >>>> > advocacy as do many librarians. It's concern to me to see > Wikipedia > > > >>>> > undermining its own authority in such a public way in what > appears to be > > > >>>> > a misguided attempt to deflect association with the MJournal > site. > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > Would welcome any insight or ideas on how to navigate this > discussion. > > > >>>> > The entire M-Journal use case exists, imho, because we are still > > > >>>> > battling for a critical (not blanket acceptance) view of Wiki > as a > > > >>>> > resources, and I find this kind of public statement to be very > damaging > > > >>>> > to the hard work so many are doing to create a quality > information resource. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>> Libraries mailing list > > > >>>> [email protected] > > > >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries > > > >>> > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> Libraries mailing list > > > >>> [email protected] > > > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> Libraries mailing list > > > >> [email protected] > > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Libraries mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries > > _______________________________________________ > Libraries mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries >
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
