Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Rob wrote: In this context, the secondary source is I found a reference to a newspaper article which quotes the date. It's not going to discuss the conflict the way you describe--it's just more acceptable because it better fits the rule. I got the newspaper article today and it turns out it discusses the birth date discrepancy in detail, with references to interviews with family, a number of documents, and court testimony. This is exactly the reason we should be using these kinds of sources as opposed to our own amateur database lookups, not the strawman of a rules fetish. If they're available. But what if they're not? Is it okay to mention that the contradictory information exists? I doubt you're going to come up with a hard and fast rule which doesn't have any unintended consequences. Ultimately, the fact that everyone can edit ensures a system of verifiability, not truth. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Anthony wrote: And it's not a primary source. In historiography, a primary source (also called original source) is a document, recording, artifact, or other source of information that was created at the time under study, usually by a source with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. Social security didn't even exist in 1904, so clearly this information was not created in 1904. The requirement that Social Security Numbers of newborn children appear on a tax return is relatively recent. Before 1989 the person applied himself. I thought your parents could still apply for you back then, but maybe I'm wrong. Nowadays they don't quite force you to get them but you can't claim any tax deductions/credits/etc without them. But even today I'm not sure it's a primary source. It's generally a secondary source, which is based on your birth certificate, which is the primary source. (And there are plenty of exceptions to that - not everyone has a birth certificate, after all.) It's just a bad secondary source, because it presents conclusions without backing those conclusions up with explanations. Still, probably worthy of a mention if it contradicts others sources which are presented in the article, and isn't proven to be incorrect by any of those other sources. (But how do you come up with a hard and fast rule about that? I don't think you can.) On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: If they're available. But what if they're not? Is it okay to mention that the contradictory information exists? I doubt you're going to come up with a hard and fast rule which doesn't have any unintended consequences. Ultimately, the fact that everyone can edit ensures a system of verifiability, not truth. You're absolutely right, availability is an issue. But if we have a hard and fast rule the other way and say sources like the SSDI are okay, then there's no incentive to look for that secondary source which does explain the issue. We might, in rare cases, settle for the SSDI if absolutely necessary, but not without a reasonable search, which in this particular case clearly hadn't been done. Right, the problem cuts both ways. The best source, it seems, would be a reliable secondary source which details the primary sources it relies upon and explains why it has come to the conclusions it has come to about them. But that's not always available. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: If the you've understood a rule as some formality that you must comply with when it clearly does not help you've misunderstood something. (Either the rule, the applicability of the rule, or that it helps; Even a poorly drafted rule can't bind you to pointless mechanisations: thats part of the core purpose of WP:IAR) I'm not sure about that. The rule against original research is a good example of a rule to which IAR can't really apply - at least not in all situations. The rule is there to protect the encyclopedia from crackpots. But no one thinks they're a crackpot. So if you have an exception for original research which improves the encyclopedia, you might as well not have the rule in the first place. If a secondary source isn't a synthesis and analysis of primary source material, then it's not really a secondary source. [snip] Part of your confusion probably stems from that fact that wikipedians often treat news reports like secondary sources. Good reporting is a kind of scolarship, but good reporting is rare. More often news reporting is just a lossy regurgitation of primary source material (or wikipedia!) or even just barely informed speculation. But thats a problem with Wikipedia's misunderstanding the general worthlessness of news-media, not a problem with preferring secondary sources over primary sources. The whole notion of distinct classes of primary source and secondary source doesn't map especially well. Right on. Very well put. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Rob wrote: Searching far and wide to find a secondary source that quoted the primary source gains you *nothing* except compliance with Wikipedia rules. The secondary source isn't going to do any better fact-checking than you did when you just looked at the primary source directly--it just fills a rules requirement. The secondary sources (presumably, ideally) will discuss why there is a discrepancy between the birth records and the obituaries and encyclopedias and dig into the issue a lot further than just merely announcing the obituaries are wrong. In this context, the secondary source is I found a reference to a newspaper article which quotes the date. It's not going to discuss the conflict the way you describe--it's just more acceptable because it better fits the rule. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Gregory Maxwell wrote: No it's not. If the you've understood a rule as some formality that you must comply with when it clearly does not help you've misunderstood something. That's how rules actually work in Wikipedia. Ignoring a rule--especially a rule about sourcing--is going to get you pounced upon by rule mongers. And in a dispute, the rule mongers are always right. It doesn't matter if the rule actually does any good. You're talking about an ideal Wikipedia and I'm talking about the one we're stuck with. Funny— It's worked for me many many times. I think you're overemphasizing the corner cases where it fails. It's only natural, 999 out of 1000 times something works fine, people are going to remember the one time where it blew up in their face. Most edits don't provide source data, most aren't reverted... Doesn't mean that the system doesn't need to be improved, but it's not helpful to characterize it as always failing to do the right thing. (or perhaps you should try editing in a less contentious area, or stop pushing a fringe viewpoint… if either of those things apply to you, your experience would be understandably different from average) A decent secondary source, written by people familiar with the limitations of the primary material and with consideration of the available data and scholarship, is that sanity checking. In that case, it's not a (decent) secondary source at all, and the initial idea--that there are no secondary sources--was correct. The idea that a newspaper article that quotes the date from the primary source is going to do any more sanity checking than you would... isn't true. [snip] In this context, the secondary source is I found a reference to a newspaper article which quotes the date. It's not going to discuss the conflict the way you describe--it's just more acceptable because it better fits the rule. So I went to some effort in a previous message to slam newsmedia as a secondary source. It usually isn't in any meningful way. But the problem there is the misguided belief that it is, not the preference for secondary sources. I don't know how it is outside of the US, but primary education in the US places news media (and encyclopaedias!) as high quality sources of digested information. When I first got access to a university library (along with journals, and specialist reference works) it was a incredibly eye opening experience for me. I expect that as more references works become accessible online along with open access journals people will recognize that newspapers are not usually good secondary sources and the norms on Wikipedia will change... but that will take time. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote:
The reason I balk at using the SSDI or the census is I don't think we
should be using primary sources in this manner. There are numerous
pitfalls, including many errors of spelling and fact, to using these
sources. Historians and journalists should be evaluating these
sources, not us. In this particular case, editors are using a primary
source to disprove reliable secondary sources, which are plentiful and
unanimous (until now, see below) when it comes to the birthdate.
Isn't this the kind of primary source research that we always
discourage Wikipedians from doing?
It's worth drawing the distinction between a secondary source which
explains its disagreement with a notable primary source from one which
doesn't.
If the secondary sources provide uncontroversial cause for believing
the SSDI (a notable and relevant primary source) to be incorrect in
this case, then it may well be best to not even mention the SSDI data.
But if no reliable source gives us an objective reason for the
primary data to be considered incorrect, beyond mere inconsistency, it
would only be reasonable for the article to disclose the disagreement
without taking a position ('however, the SSDI states X').
Stated generally, in a form suitable for a policy page:
Although we believe secondary sources (Works which relate or discuss
information originally presented elsewhere) to be more reliable than
primary sources, they are still often incorrect. One cause for errors
in a secondary source is that its author was unaware of an important
primary source. A secondary source which fails to explain its
disagreement with an obvious primary source was either created without
considering that source or fails to be thorough scholarship, and mere
disagreement with such a secondary source cannot be sufficient reason
to believe the primary source is incorrect.
Where no source can be found stating that a particular primary source
is incorrect, we can not know (in any source-tractable manner) whether
that primary source is correct. Since we do not know, we should not
take any position on its correctness. Presuming that the primary
source in question is uncontroversially relevant and sufficiently
notable, using it in the form of a mere statement of fact is the more
neutral action. An intentional omission of a relevant and notable
primary source would be a value judgment which, in the absence of a
sourceable cause, NPOV philosophically prohibits us from making.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Rob wrote: The fact that original secondary sources were wrong in this case is immaterial. Errors in secondary sources should be a reason to dig up more secondary sources, not to make a point using primary ones. Wikipedia is already full of places where people are required to jump through hoops merely because that's what the rules require, even if it doesn't actually help. This is another one. Searching far and wide to find a secondary source that quoted the primary source gains you *nothing* except compliance with Wikipedia rules. The secondary source isn't going to do any better fact-checking than you did when you just looked at the primary source directly--it just fills a rules requirement. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Searching far and wide to find a secondary source that quoted the primary source gains you *nothing* except compliance with Wikipedia rules. The secondary source isn't going to do any better fact-checking than you did when you just looked at the primary source directly--it just fills a rules requirement. The secondary sources (presumably, ideally) will discuss why there is a discrepancy between the birth records and the obituaries and encyclopedias and dig into the issue a lot further than just merely announcing the obituaries are wrong. Searching far and wide may be too much to ask, and I realize that not every editor has the research mojo of a librarian, but all I did was track down a newspaper article and a biography. Perhaps digging up the former is too much, but is it really too much to ask that editors working on a biographical article crack open a biography of the subject? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
Ken Arromdee wrote: On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, FT2 wrote: So the resolution of your question above is, if anyone could in principle check it without analysis, just by witnessing the object or document and attesting it says what it says (or is what it is, or has certain obvious qualities), then that's verifiable. If it would need analysis, interpretation or deduction to form the view, so that some views might be credible/expert and some might not, then we don't try to play the expert here, we look at what credible sources/experts say instead. 1) That doesn't seem to be actual Wikipedia policy. Sure it is. Have a look at the section on dealing with primary sources. That's almost a perfect summary of it. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: It's precisely the people that *think* they understand the wikipedia that usually become deletionists or inclusionists. Read carefully: ...WP:CLUE in some ways more speak[s] to the spirit of things... Same point. And agreed that it is infuriatingly vague in a way, to some people, because something not written can matter more than the words on the page. FT2 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote: Ken Arromdee wrote: On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, FT2 wrote: So the resolution of your question above is, if anyone could in principle check it without analysis, just by witnessing the object or document and attesting it says what it says (or is what it is, or has certain obvious qualities), then that's verifiable. If it would need analysis, interpretation or deduction to form the view, so that some views might be credible/expert and some might not, then we don't try to play the expert here, we look at what credible sources/experts say instead. 1) That doesn't seem to be actual Wikipedia policy. Sure it is. Have a look at the section on dealing with primary sources. That's almost a perfect summary of it. To add to this, note that primary sources are stated to include ...archeological artifacts; photographs.. NOR, a core policy in this area, doesn't say that the writings about an artifact are the source. It says clearly that artifacts themselves are categorized as primary sources. The only way an artifact or photograph could ever be a source is that by its very existence, it has a number of obvious descriptive qualities and the like that any reasonable person witnessing it would agree upon, and that anyone with access to the artifact could verify. FT2 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote: And of course, it is this portion of policy that causes us issues with regards fiction. Since the work itself is a primary source. We haven't yet worked out to what extent a article on a fictional subject should rely on secondary sources. Or at least reached a consensus. It's easier to tackle fiction articles by removing speculation and interpretation. Generally, I think that should be the better approach, and I'd like to see a similar policy, in terms of scope rather than content, created for articles on fictional subjects. I think Phul Sandifer had a draft somewhere, but it's real hard to organise a consensus in this area, there's real division running deep. The issue for fiction can be summed up within with one question, almost. Here is a nice simple book. Obviously any /analysis/ will be from good quality sources. But what kind of sourcing is appropriate to its plot summary? Many well-read books don't have plot summaries in reliable sources, and yet anyone reading the book can see what its basic plot is, and we have hundreds of editors to reach consensus on what it says. (Key issue: any book is a primary source on its own contents.) FT2 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
FT2 wrote: The issue for fiction can be summed up within with one question, almost. Here is a nice simple book. Obviously any /analysis/ will be from good quality sources. But what kind of sourcing is appropriate to its plot summary? Many well-read books don't have plot summaries in reliable sources, and yet anyone reading the book can see what its basic plot is, and we have hundreds of editors to reach consensus on what it says. (Key issue: any book is a primary source on its own contents.) You've misread me. The key question is, why should we summarise this plot. That's what's causing the problems with fiction on Wikipedia at the minute. Although having said that, the drama does seem to have died off a bit lately. Which kind of suggests a consensus of sorts exists. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
2009/10/1 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com: You've misread me. The key question is, why should we summarise this plot. That's what's causing the problems with fiction on Wikipedia at the minute. Although having said that, the drama does seem to have died off a bit lately. Which kind of suggests a consensus of sorts exists. Yeah. Don't prod it with sticks too hard for the moment ;-p Though grossly excessive plot summaries are getting tagged as such, and many are being greatly improved as individuals get around to them. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote: FT2 wrote: The issue for fiction can be summed up within with one question, almost. Here is a nice simple book. Obviously any /analysis/ will be from good quality sources. But what kind of sourcing is appropriate to its plot summary? Many well-read books don't have plot summaries in reliable sources, and yet anyone reading the book can see what its basic plot is, and we have hundreds of editors to reach consensus on what it says. (Key issue: any book is a primary source on its own contents.) You've misread me. The key question is, why should we summarise this plot. That's what's causing the problems with fiction on Wikipedia at the minute. Although having said that, the drama does seem to have died off a bit lately. Which kind of suggests a consensus of sorts exists. I think plot summaries are OK, as long as there is some real-world context and analysis. Just a description of what the book is about is not enough. Links to reviews and criticism is a must, in my view. Some examples would help here, from stubs, to only plot summary (more like a directory of books), to mixtures to featured articles about books (we have a few of those). Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, FT2 wrote: To add to this, note that primary sources are stated to include ...archeological artifacts; photographs.. NOR, a core policy in this area, doesn't say that the writings about an artifact are the source. It says clearly that artifacts themselves are categorized as primary sources. The only way an artifact or photograph could ever be a source is that by its very existence, it has a number of obvious descriptive qualities and the like that any reasonable person witnessing it would agree upon, and that anyone with access to the artifact could verify. This is logical, but only proves that our rules contradict ourselves every which way. If you read NOR and RS, the general impression is that a source is written or otherwise published material about something. Those words you quoted are pretty much the only references to a source being an object, rather than what someone writes about the object. It's a matter of emphasis--everything else pretty much implies (regardless of whether it says so outright) that this kind of source isn't good. This is, in fact, one of the problems with a lot of Wikipedia rules: we so strongly emphasize a rule that nobody will believe in any exceptions, even if we didn't literally say the rule needed to be followed 100% of the time. Also, there are phrases which seem to directly contradict it. For instance, NOR contains this: Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material. This implies that you *can't* use an object as a source, since it would be your personal eyewitness account of the bridge or whatever. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: This is logical, but only proves that our rules contradict ourselves every which way. Indeed. And we are broadly fine with that, to an extent. A number of policy and project pages explicitly point out that not everything will be 100% consistent. This implies that you *can't* use an object as a source, since it would be your personal eyewitness account of the bridge or whatever. But that affects all sources. How do we know that report X in peer-reviewed journal Y is fairly summed up as described? All we have is one or more editors who read it, and wrote about what they think it says. To be unsubtle, take the most highly regarded authoritative book on a topic, and cite it in a topic as a source for some point or other. What enters Wikipedia will be your personal eyewitness account of what ultra-widely-acknowledged expert X wrote or ultra-authoritatively-regarded journal Y says. A bridge is presented to the senses of eyewitness no more nor less than a paper, a rock, or any artifact. It's editor interpretation, opinion and judgment that we avoid, not reporting faithfully what any reasonable witness exposed to that same item would agree is obvious to the five senses. FT2 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
Carcharoth wrote: On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Surreptitiousness wrote: FT2 wrote: The issue for fiction can be summed up within with one question, almost. Here is a nice simple book. Obviously any /analysis/ will be from good quality sources. But what kind of sourcing is appropriate to its plot summary? Many well-read books don't have plot summaries in reliable sources, and yet anyone reading the book can see what its basic plot is, and we have hundreds of editors to reach consensus on what it says. (Key issue: any book is a primary source on its own contents.) You've misread me. The key question is, why should we summarise this plot. That's what's causing the problems with fiction on Wikipedia at the minute. Although having said that, the drama does seem to have died off a bit lately. Which kind of suggests a consensus of sorts exists. I think plot summaries are OK, as long as there is some real-world context and analysis. Just a description of what the book is about is not enough. Links to reviews and criticism is a must, in my view. Some examples would help here, from stubs, to only plot summary (more like a directory of books), to mixtures to featured articles about books (we have a few of those). Why shouldn't a plot summary or book description be enough? It's a fundamental building block for any article. While it would be nice to have reviews and criticisms a simple tag that we would like these added should suffice to alert someone else to add them. The people who write a good summary are often not the same people who condense reviews and criticisms well. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
2009/10/1 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net: This is logical, but only proves that our rules contradict ourselves every which way. Yes. The rules are not a consistent legal framework, they're a series of quick hacks. If you regard them as an immaculate stainless steel construction of flawless design every component of which is intended to mesh perfectly with every other component ... then you have badly misunderstood how Wikipedia works and will be continually frustrated (much as you are now). That a lot of people seem to assume this doesn't make it any truer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Practical_process - does this help explain how we got here? I'm not saying it's desirable, I'm saying this is how it is. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, David Gerard wrote: This is logical, but only proves that our rules contradict ourselves every which way. Yes. The rules are not a consistent legal framework, they're a series of quick hacks. The literal words aren't the only problem, though. Usually our rules are written so as to emphasize that the user should or should not do some specific thing. But if you emphasize something strongly in the rules, that *affects how the spirit of the rules is interpreted*. It's not just that people are too literal about primary sources--it's that even if they go by the spirit of the rules, the lopsided emphasis makes it seem like the spirit of the rules is as restrictive as the literal rules. And back to literal words... I'm really tired of the attitude since the rules aren't meant to be taken literally, we won't fix them so that they make more sense if someone does try to read them literally. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
2009/10/1 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com: The problem is there comes a point where you can't improve them in terms of definitiveness without them being so long as to defeat easy readability (tl;dr). At that point we rely on the reader to figure it out. if you can spot improvements that others haven't, and they reflect the spirit better than the present wording, then Be Bold and see if others agree they are an improvement, and fix them! Yes. The key problem is that no rules can stop stupidity or bad faith. Particularly not stupidity. Ken, you appear to be demanding wording that will be so good that people can't apply it stupidly. There is no such possible quality of wording where human judgement can possibly be involved; and removing human judgement makes it stupider. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, FT2 wrote: The problem is there comes a point where you can't improve them in terms of definitiveness without them being so long as to defeat easy readability (tl;dr). At that point we rely on the reader to figure it out. if you can spot improvements that others haven't, and they reflect the spirit better than the present wording, then Be Bold and see if others agree they are an improvement, and fix them! Well, the last time I ran into this was the way IAR is worded. For such a short rule it has a huge flaw: it says you can only ignore rules for the purpose of improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. The result is people constantly claiming that you can't ignore rules for BLP or privacy concerns, since helping the BLP subject is not a form of improving the encyclopedia. Obviously it would be overkill to edit IAR itself, but nobody was even interested on the talk page of WIARM, except one person who said that it's okay that's badly worded because our rules don't literally mean what they say. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
2009/10/1 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net: Well, the last time I ran into this was the way IAR is worded. For such a short rule it has a huge flaw: it says you can only ignore rules for the purpose of improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. The result is people constantly claiming that you can't ignore rules for BLP or privacy concerns, since helping the BLP subject is not a form of improving the encyclopedia. Obviously it would be overkill to edit IAR itself, but nobody was even interested on the talk page of WIARM, except one person who said that it's okay that's badly worded because our rules don't literally mean what they say. Handy guide to IAR: If the reactions to your actions when you try to apply IAR are you're clueless, then perhaps you don't understand IAR. But, by all means, do please keep posting to wikien-l about IAR. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, FT2 wrote: So the resolution of your question above is, if anyone could in principle check it without analysis, just by witnessing the object or document and attesting it says what it says (or is what it is, or has certain obvious qualities), then that's verifiable. If it would need analysis, interpretation or deduction to form the view, so that some views might be credible/expert and some might not, then we don't try to play the expert here, we look at what credible sources/experts say instead. 1) That doesn't seem to be actual Wikipedia policy. 2) It's always possible to come up with some farfetched scenario where the direct observation is wrong, proving that you need analysis, interpretation, or deduction every single time. Maybe the bridge was opened one day for a special festival and it's usually closed to traffic. Maybe the document states a false date for some legal reason that you, not being an expert, wouldn't know about. Heck, this happened right now; someone basically suggested maybe the family members recall the date incorrectly (even though it wasn't just family members). An example of the kinds of problems you bump into when depending on primary sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swampyankdiff=prevoldid=312682486 But there should be no problem under policy for pointing out BOTH what a respectable primary source says along with disagreeing secondary sources. If any policy says otherwise it should be fixed. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
Durova wrote: Suppose for discussion's sake we can fully trust that the brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew has indeed commented upon the matter. Relatives have been known to get their facts wrong. The more distant, the more likely a mistake. Your presumption here is that the information came from the brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew. That may very well have some weight in evaluating the information on a death certificate. The birth information in the SSDI could reasonably be from a different source: her own application for a social security number. Other official sources exist My own cousins and I debate the spelling of a grandmother's name. And certain records are unverifiable because of warehouse fires. In a few instances I know the later records are wrong because I was present when the later data was recorded and the person who answered the questions, who was choked with grief, simply misspoke. Others who were present were jet lagged from sudden arrangements to attend the funeral and too slow to react. There's a family member who ought to have a military honor on his burial marker but doesn't, because of that. I wish I'd had the presence of mind to correct the omission when the opportunity came. Spelling gives rise to a broad range of different errors. My own father misspelled my middle name on my birth record as Micheal even though his own first name was Michael. On census records spelling errors abound. When census takers went out to gather information in a less literate era they were left to their own devices when they had to record the name of an illiterate, particularly in the case of an immigrant whose name was in a strange tongue. Priests who performed marriages often fixed names to make them more consistent with community norms. Let's go with the secondary sources here. No disrespect intended. Leaving data from a secondary source untouched when it is in reasonable doubt is more obtuse than disrespectful. If we continue in this way we perpetuate errors, and only add fuel for those who consider Wikipedia unreliable One secondary source that uses 1904 for Jeane Dixon's birth is IMDB, but they err in their link to her husband James Dixon. He was an acquaintance of Hal Roach, and the Dixons were married in 1939, but the linked James Dixon was *born* in 1939. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ray Saintonge wrote: Durova wrote: Suppose for discussion's sake we can fully trust that the brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew has indeed commented upon the matter. Relatives have been known to get their facts wrong. The more distant, the more likely a mistake. Your presumption here is that the information came from the brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew. That may very well have some weight in evaluating the information on a death certificate. The birth information in the SSDI could reasonably be from a different source: her own application for a social security number. Other official sources exist My own cousins and I debate the spelling of a grandmother's name. And certain records are unverifiable because of warehouse fires. In a few instances I know the later records are wrong because I was present when the later data was recorded and the person who answered the questions, who was choked with grief, simply misspoke. Others who were present were jet lagged from sudden arrangements to attend the funeral and too slow to react. There's a family member who ought to have a military honor on his burial marker but doesn't, because of that. I wish I'd had the presence of mind to correct the omission when the opportunity came. Spelling gives rise to a broad range of different errors. My own father misspelled my middle name on my birth record as Micheal even though his own first name was Michael. On census records spelling errors abound. When census takers went out to gather information in a less literate era they were left to their own devices when they had to record the name of an illiterate, particularly in the case of an immigrant whose name was in a strange tongue. Priests who performed marriages often fixed names to make them more consistent with community norms. Let's go with the secondary sources here. No disrespect intended. Leaving data from a secondary source untouched when it is in reasonable doubt is more obtuse than disrespectful. If we continue in this way we perpetuate errors, and only add fuel for those who consider Wikipedia unreliable One secondary source that uses 1904 for Jeane Dixon's birth is IMDB, but they err in their link to her husband James Dixon. He was an acquaintance of Hal Roach, and the Dixons were married in 1939, but the linked James Dixon was *born* in 1939. In my experience, IMDB is hugely unreliable as a secondary source, notably because the material can be edited by you and me (provided you have an account); and while it is all subject to editorial review, a good portion of the data is accepted without question. - -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrDsrsACgkQyQg4JSymDYncJwCeL92o7D5JX1bupsrOl1vh0oH6 PtEAn2xF8qZJHJ/t51rUywv8LXhwWhnD =DONK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
Gregory Maxwell wrote: An example of the kinds of problems you bump into when depending on primary sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swampyankdiff=prevoldid=312682486 But there should be no problem under policy for pointing out BOTH what a respectable primary source says along with disagreeing secondary sources. If any policy says otherwise it should be fixed. Is there a _primary_ source for a date of birth beyond a birth certificate or other official registration? Seems to me that dragging thou shalt not quote primary sources into arguments is more likely a source of confusion than of clarification. Just because we don't want people doing original research of a tendentious sort from primary sources that need interpretative care and publishing it on Wikipedia, it doesn't mean that we have always to wait for a secondary source to copy across straight data. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
George Herbert wrote: Verifyable, but untrue - where there's evidence to disprove but it's not compellingly better quality data than the untrue data - is the hard case. Either walk the narrow line and present both or pick one and defend using it, staying aware that more info may clarify the situation into the first case above. The advantage of raising doubts by presenting both is that some yet unknown person with access to better sources may become aware of the uncertainty. Honestly admitting uncertainties improves reliability. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
Ken Arromdee wrote: On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, FT2 wrote: So the resolution of your question above is, if anyone could in principle check it without analysis, just by witnessing the object or document and attesting it says what it says (or is what it is, or has certain obvious qualities), then that's verifiable. If it would need analysis, interpretation or deduction to form the view, so that some views might be credible/expert and some might not, then we don't try to play the expert here, we look at what credible sources/experts say instead. 1) That doesn't seem to be actual Wikipedia policy. One of the functions of IAR is to protect us from becoming slaves to policy that leads us to information which defies common sense or which leads us into absurdities. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
Cary Bass wrote: Ray Saintonge wrote: One secondary source that uses 1904 for Jeane Dixon's birth is IMDB, but they err in their link to her husband James Dixon. He was an acquaintance of Hal Roach, and the Dixons were married in 1939, but the linked James Dixon was *born* in 1939. In my experience, IMDB is hugely unreliable as a secondary source, notably because the material can be edited by you and me (provided you have an account); and while it is all subject to editorial review, a good portion of the data is accepted without question. So they suffer from the same crowd sourcing problems as Wikipedia? ;-) If we are aware of its problems we are warned to proceed with caution. That's not entirely a knockout blow to it as a source. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Durova wrote: Suppose for discussion's sake we can fully trust that the brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew has indeed commented upon the matter. Relatives have been known to get their facts wrong. The more distant, the more likely a mistake. Your presumption here is that the information came from the brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew. That may very well have some weight in evaluating the information on a death certificate. The birth information in the SSDI could reasonably be from a different source: her own application for a social security number. Other official sources exist Not a presumption but a direct reference to the opening thread post. No secondary source and no other primary confirms his assertion, according to the opening post. That's subnotable. My own cousins and I debate the spelling of a grandmother's name. And certain records are unverifiable because of warehouse fires. In a few instances I know the later records are wrong because I was present when the later data was recorded and the person who answered the questions, who was choked with grief, simply misspoke. Others who were present were jet lagged from sudden arrangements to attend the funeral and too slow to react. There's a family member who ought to have a military honor on his burial marker but doesn't, because of that. I wish I'd had the presence of mind to correct the omission when the opportunity came. Spelling gives rise to a broad range of different errors. My own father misspelled my middle name on my birth record as Micheal even though his own first name was Michael. I may be the only person alive who knows the original spelling of my father's middle name (hint: if you started kindergarten in 1945 it was slightly uncool to have a name that was recognizably German). On census records spelling errors abound. When census takers went out to gather information in a less literate era they were left to their own devices when they had to record the name of an illiterate, particularly in the case of an immigrant whose name was in a strange tongue. Priests who performed marriages often fixed names to make them more consistent with community norms. But does any census record, ever, give the 1904 birthdate? Has any secondary source determined it was worth repeating? That would change the discussion substantially. What we're discussing is near unanimity. A single primary source from the close of her life and a putative distant relative are all that contest it. A fourteen year gap would be substantial; [[WP:UNDUE]] that isn't enough to merit coverage. Plenty of reliable small presses would run the story if the nephew's brother-in-law cares enough and has a good case to make for it. -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
Policies and rules don't work that way, exactly. They're a bit zen, they point to the moon, but they aren't the moon themselves. if you want a formal policy that everyone /must/ follow, then 5 pillars, or WP:CLUE are in some ways more speaking to the spirit of things, rather than the detail of it. No written page can capture the full precise black and white version, because there isn't such a thing. We fix it to get fairly close on big stuff, and hope people figure out the small stuff on their own, or by seeing how others react to their trying things out. If you try and run Wikipedia literally by the policies (including IAR) but not the spirit, you'll get close but there will regularly be areas you'll miss the point, the what a clueful person might intuit (which will surely be divergent with others!) FT2 On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote: 1) That doesn't seem to be actual Wikipedia policy. One of the functions of IAR is to protect us from becoming slaves to policy that leads us to information which defies common sense or which leads us into absurdities. IAR is only useful when everyone agrees that what you want to do is common sense. If there's any conflict about it, IAR is pretty much worthless--that is, it's worthless exactly when you need it. And Wikipedia is peppered with conflicts where rule wonks always want you to follow rules, and quoting IAR to them means you lose. And as I pointed out, if you need IAR to make a rule not totally break things in the cases where the rule matters--that's really a sign that you should just fix the rule, rather than quoting IAR. Of course, rules are nearly impossible to fix (except by abusing other rules). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
We're an encyclopedia. Often sources conflict. If so, mention what both sources say. An example where this has happened in another article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Parliamentary_expenses_scandal#Source_of_information See last para of that section. May help you. Another is here, where there is some genuine historical uncertainty to whether the matter existed or not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin's_speech_on_August_19,_1939 Between those two, you should get some good ideas. FT2 On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote: This may have come up before so if there's a previous discussion on en or here, please direct me to it. Do we have an official stance on using primary sources like the US census and the Social Security Death Index to prove a case of [[age fabrication]]? My take on it is that it is prohibited original research, using primary sources to disprove secondary ones, compounded by the fact that we could easily confuse the subject of the article with another person of the same or similar name. If you want to be specific, here it is: Every published source has a birthdate of 1918 for the late psychic Jeane Dixon. However the SSDI has her birthdate as 1904 and the brother-in-law of her nephew swears on the talk page that the 1904 date is the correct one. I think the 1904 is correct, and it's frustrating because likely no journalist or historian is going to bother publishing something about such a minor matter, but my opinion is irrelevant and we should defer to published sources. Verifiability not truth and all that. Or should we IAR in cases like this and go with the correct date? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
Adding to that: From a Wikipedia editorial stance, stating that date of birth has multiple reliable sources that conflict, is fine. Books state X, official government records state Y, both are RS enough to be worth citing and the difference is probably worth noting in the context of her article as well. So state the facts. It's fine to say source X states Y and source P states Q or the like. Where it becomes OR is if you then start to draw your own conclusions from it, which one is right, etc, if you don't have a good basis to do so. FT2 On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:22 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: We're an encyclopedia. Often sources conflict. If so, mention what both sources say. An example where this has happened in another article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Parliamentary_expenses_scandal#Source_of_information See last para of that section. May help you. Another is here, where there is some genuine historical uncertainty to whether the matter existed or not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin's_speech_on_August_19,_1939 Between those two, you should get some good ideas. FT2 On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote: This may have come up before so if there's a previous discussion on en or here, please direct me to it. Do we have an official stance on using primary sources like the US census and the Social Security Death Index to prove a case of [[age fabrication]]? My take on it is that it is prohibited original research, using primary sources to disprove secondary ones, compounded by the fact that we could easily confuse the subject of the article with another person of the same or similar name. If you want to be specific, here it is: Every published source has a birthdate of 1918 for the late psychic Jeane Dixon. However the SSDI has her birthdate as 1904 and the brother-in-law of her nephew swears on the talk page that the 1904 date is the correct one. I think the 1904 is correct, and it's frustrating because likely no journalist or historian is going to bother publishing something about such a minor matter, but my opinion is irrelevant and we should defer to published sources. Verifiability not truth and all that. Or should we IAR in cases like this and go with the correct date? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:32 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: From a Wikipedia editorial stance, stating that date of birth has multiple reliable sources that conflict, is fine. Books state X, official government records state Y, both are RS enough to be worth citing and the difference is probably worth noting in the context of her article as well. Yep. I'd probably list the most commonly published one in the lede, with a footnote explaining the issue. One place I did something slightly similar was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_McTell - see the Note. Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Verifiability, not truth means that sometimes we'll put in something that's verifiable but isn't true. That statement gets abused. The prime exception is the Verifyable, but untrue case. If it's Verifyable, but verifyably untrue it's easy - Commonly used source A says X, but source B and others indicate that source A is incorrect on this point and the correct value is Y. Verifyable, but untrue - where there's evidence to disprove but it's not compellingly better quality data than the untrue data - is the hard case. Either walk the narrow line and present both or pick one and defend using it, staying aware that more info may clarify the situation into the first case above. Verifyable, but I assert it's untrue is a variation on Because I said so. This is what the statement is meant for. If you assert it's untrue and you're right, you have a reason for knowing that it's untrue - you can cite what informed you. If you assert it's untrue and you have an opinion but not actual factual knowledge, your opinion is trumped by a verifyable statement, even if you legitimately think it's an untrue statement. If you AGF about someone who thinks they might be able to find a reference to back up their opinion or memory, the best thing to do is help them do a search for reference materials to back them up. Encouraging people to dig up info and cite it solidly is good practice anyways. Exceptions include BLP, where I'm person Z, and that never happened to me... does hold some weight... -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Verifiability, not truth means that sometimes we'll put in something that's verifiable but isn't true. If you use IAR now, you'll have a hard time justifying not using it every time something's verifable-but-false. And if you do use it every time, why not just fix the rule? (Aside from it's so easy to filibuster a rule change and people are so attached to the existing rules that it's impossible to fix them.) Verifiability not truth is probably one of the most poorly understood expressions on the wiki. It roughly means that we document what can be factually checked, in preference to what we believe. Most of the time the two coincide - I believe people have lungs, and it's a fact that a wide range of very credible sources on human anatomy say they do as well. Pure unsupported (or poorly supported) belief is not, by itself, a good basis to tell the rest of the world this is what's so. As a reference source, the mandate we have is to document information, that means not introducing our own beliefs about whats true too much into it. Write about what is verifiable, rather than what you or someone happens to believe is true is a soundbite, a way to express that approach. We don't know 100.000% about reality, or history, or culture, or any area. We do know what credible students of reality, history and culture have concluded and without dipping into philosophy, that is what we document. It's not fireworks and adventure. It's documenting what credible sources state, and the fact that credible sources do state those things. IAR is the other main poorly understood policy ;) FT2 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:13 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Write about what is verifiable, rather than what you or someone happens to believe is true is a soundbite, a way to express that approach. We don't know 100.000% about reality, or history, or culture, or any area. We do know what credible students of reality, history and culture have concluded and without dipping into philosophy, that is what we document. The soundbite I use is that Wikipedia outsources truth. The debate about what is or isn't true is not ours but is played out amongst the various sources that we can draw upon as references. -Liam [[witty lama]] wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata FT2 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: The soundbite I use is that Wikipedia outsources truth. The debate about what is or isn't true is not ours but is played out amongst the various sources that we can draw upon as references. Good soundbite. :-) -Kat -- Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en Wikimedia, Press: k...@wikimedia.org * Personal: k...@mindspillage.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:Mindspillage mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net * email for phone ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
Suppose for discussion's sake we can fully trust that the brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew has indeed commented upon the matter. Relatives have been known to get their facts wrong. The more distant, the more likely a mistake. My own cousins and I debate the spelling of a grandmother's name. And certain records are unverifiable because of warehouse fires. In a few instances I know the later records are wrong because I was present when the later data was recorded and the person who answered the questions, who was choked with grief, simply misspoke. Others who were present were jet lagged from sudden arrangements to attend the funeral and too slow to react. There's a family member who ought to have a military honor on his burial marker but doesn't, because of that. I wish I'd had the presence of mind to correct the omission when the opportunity came. Let's go with the secondary sources here. No disrespect intended. On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Kat Walsh k...@mindspillage.org wrote: On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: The soundbite I use is that Wikipedia outsources truth. The debate about what is or isn't true is not ours but is played out amongst the various sources that we can draw upon as references. Good soundbite. :-) -Kat -- Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en Wikimedia, Press: k...@wikimedia.org * Personal: k...@mindspillage.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:Mindspillage mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net * email for phone ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
