Would it make more sense to say: "You wouldn't cite the *Encyclopedia Britannica* while writing a term paper, dissertation or academic thesis. Likewise, the Wikipedia needs to be treated as a generic encyclopedia, and is mostly not suitable for being cited directly in scholarly writing. You might however find useful background information on a huge number of topics related to many fields of knowledge, and also important pointers to further specific sources via the Wikipedia."
FN On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 21:15, John Lubbock <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Kathleen, > > I disagree that saying 'don't cite Wikipedia in an academic context' > discredits the site. It's my job to promote the Wikimedia projects in the > UK with the many academic institutions we work with, and showing that > Wikimedia UK understands the concerns of academics whose students might > cite Wikipedia is quite important for us to be taken seriously. > > Your response to my tweet was the only negative one as far as I am aware. > Every other response was supportive. We obviously disagree on this point, > but I have been working on communications here in the UK for some time now, > and I understand what messages work for us to engage productively with > academia. Nevertheless, thank you for your input, which I will take on > board. > > Regards, > > John Lubbock > > Communications Coordinator > > Wikimedia UK > > +44 (0) 203 372 0767 > > > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Office 1, > Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ. > > Wikimedia UK is the national chapter of the global Wikimedia open > knowledge movement. We rely on donations from individuals to support our > work to make knowledge open for all. Have you considered supporting > Wikimedia UK? Donate here <https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk>. > > The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate > Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent > non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility > for its contents.* > > > On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 16:04, Kathleen DeLaurenti < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi John - >> >> Thanks for joining the conversation here. I'm not ignoring M Journal at >> all, but I think that it is being conflated. People cite Wikipedia in >> literature that is accepted and published after peer review. This happens. >> Whether you agree with it personally or not, it's a factual reality - well >> beyond the examples of those researching Wikipedia as an entity. >> >> When an official account conflates the idea of citing Wikipedia as a >> source with the model of spoofing journal articles that M Journal has >> devised, it gives fuel to the fires of those that seek to discredit the >> cite broadly from within the academy. >> >> The mission of Wikimedia reads "... to empower and engage people around >> the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license >> or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." >> >> Making resolute statements about how that educational content can or >> should be used in any context from an official Wikimedia communication >> avenue is damaging to that mission. All you have to do is look at the >> twitter responses that it garnered. >> >> Best, >> >> Kathleen >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:20 PM John Lubbock < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear Kathleen, >>> >>> I did not say that Wikipedia should not be cited in the literature, >>> period. You are choosing to ignore this tweet in which I specifically said >>> that a journal article about Wikipedia would be an appropriate context to >>> cite Wikipedia: >>> >>> https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1177278566687477761 >>> >>> There is also the wider context of a website which not only breaks >>> WIkipedia's licensing rules >>> <https://twitter.com/pigsonthewing/status/1177302213477183489>, but >>> does so in order to trick professors into thinking a Wikipedia citation >>> comes from a journal. >>> >>> I agree that Twitter is not the best place for nuance, and perhaps I >>> would have been wise to specifically say that Wikipedia is not an 'academic >>> level source' rather than simply a source. However, I stand by this >>> characterisation, because the ultimate source for any of the information on >>> Wikipedia is not Wikipedia, it's another source. Wikipedia acts as a source >>> aggregator. >>> >>> At Wikimedia UK, we deal all the time with people who flat out refuse to >>> use Wikipedia in academic and educational contexts because students use it >>> improperly. We use the expression 'write Wikipedia, don't cite Wikipedia'. >>> You may have a different context as a librarian, but I very much take >>> exception to the way you have mischaracterised our interaction above. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> John Lubbock >>> >>> Communications Coordinator >>> >>> Wikimedia UK >>> >>> +44 (0) 203 372 0767 >>> >>> >>> >>> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and >>> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Office 1, >>> Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ. >>> >>> Wikimedia UK is the national chapter of the global Wikimedia open >>> knowledge movement. We rely on donations from individuals to support our >>> work to make knowledge open for all. Have you considered supporting >>> Wikimedia UK? Donate here <https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk>. >>> >>> The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate >>> Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent >>> non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility >>> for its contents.* >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 17:53, 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
