Why would it be inappropriate to cite primary sources, like travel logs or property deeds? I do that all the time in Wikipedia. Not only are they good sources, but they generally are much more trustable than the secondary sources which just parrot them (often with typos and misquotes).
I fully agree with Kathleen and Merrillee that Wikipedia is perfectly citable, if done properly (like using diffs for properly revised editions, and not a link to the article). The Wikipedia policy that has been mentioned here is about circular citations. It is correct, but is totally unrelated to this case. Wikipedia is not supposed to produce new knowledge, so it shouldn't be cited internally in any circumstance (at least that I can think of). OTOH, there's nothing against using proper Wikipedia citations outside Wikipedia. Even if there still is a lot of preconception about it, not only I believe it is doable, but that it should be an objective for us in the projects to provide some way to properly validate Wikipedia content for use in external sources. Best, Paulo Paul S. Wilson <[email protected]> escreveu no dia quinta, 26/09/2019 à(s) 19:25: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
