Merillee, The originally cited context not "ANYTHING", but specifically, "an academic paper":
>Yes, it may be appropriate on Twitter (though I still wouldn't because citing >Wikipedia does not tell you where the info originally comes from because >Wikipedia is simply a summary of secondary sources), but it's not appropriate >in an academic paper. https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1177215917534711808 I agree. Citing tertiary sources is not academic. On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 1:12 PM Merrilee Proffitt <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
