On 02/26/12 2:58 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
Ziko, you raise the subject of illiterates... I feel that it is blatant
discrimination to assert that the only way illiterates can create sources
worthy of citation on Wikipedia is either by becoming literate, or by being
interviewed by a literate
On 02/22/12 11:40 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Material on Wikipedia can be divided into fact and opinion. The latter
of these is, perhaps confusingly, the simplest to address; because opinion,
viewpoints and perception can quite easily be collated and summarised. The
only real difficulty exists in
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Castelo,
just to make the discussion clearer: could you just give say 5 or 10
examples of topics where you believe oral citations are unavoidable? Then I
hope that Ziko in his turn can explain how we can write
On 02/23/12 5:48 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
But the most difficult ennoying point is simply that most corp
archives appear to be a mess. Because companies are bought and sold,
information is lost on the way. Because of poor communication between
departments. Because staff come and go. And
On 02/25/12 10:30 AM, Castelo wrote:
On 25-02-2012 15:58, Michael Peel wrote:
Actually, Wikipedia sort of is the place for original content - when
it comes to illustrations in articles.
Those illustrations are mainly in Commons, with exception of the
images in fair use, but linked in the
Dear Castelo,
We are in danger to repeat ourselves. :-) Short and simply, my statement:
* WP is an encyclopedia, with all what that means;
* the difference between primary sources and secondary sources is of
vital importance (at least in the perspective of most historians).
Kind regards
Ziko
On 26-02-2012 11:34, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
Dear Castelo,
We are in danger to repeat ourselves.
Right, friend, let's not say same things again. xD
I'll only add, and not repeat, because i agree with you in what you
pointed below. I just think your list require some adittional items (as
my list
Ziko, you raise the subject of illiterates... I feel that it is blatant
discrimination to assert that the only way illiterates can create sources
worthy of citation on Wikipedia is either by becoming literate, or by being
interviewed by a literate person. This to me indicates a value judgement,
Hi Castelo,
just to make the discussion clearer: could you just give say 5 or 10
examples of topics where you believe oral citations are unavoidable? Then I
hope that Ziko in his turn can explain how we can write about those
examples without using them.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
No dia 25 de
Mountain, the first ever editor on zh-wp, and still active until today,
told me the following story one day (it was before the Oral Citation
project but I remembered the story very well):
He came from the coast of Shandong, and his father told him that earlier
there was a local tradition
Yes Ting, and for these cases there is the method of [[oral history]].
This is a means to create what the Anglosaxons call primary sources.
It is recorded and can later be used by a scholar (historian,
ethnologist etc.) for his research, for his secondary sources.
These, with their scholar
On 2/25/12 2:12 AM, Castelo wrote:
On 24-02-2012 07:48, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
Leave the use of historical sources to historians, and then cite from
their books. That's what historians are for.
Kind regards
Ziko
Ziko,
there's a lack of historians writing books outside Europe/US, specially
on
Hello Ziko,
I disagree :-)
Yes, it is the way how classic encyclopedia worked. But Wikipedia is not
a classic encyclopedia, and I don't see the sense to bound ourselves
possibilities just to please some old traditional rules.
Classic encyclopedias were written by scholars, Wikipedia is not.
On 25-02-2012 06:02, Lodewijk wrote:
Hi Castelo,
just to make the discussion clearer: could you just give say 5 or 10
examples of topics where you believe oral citations are unavoidable? Then I
hope that Ziko in his turn can explain how we can write about those
examples without using them.
On 25-02-2012 15:58, Michael Peel wrote:
Actually, Wikipedia sort of is the place for original content - when it comes
to illustrations in articles.
Those illustrations are mainly in Commons, with exception of the images
in fair use, but linked in the articles. That kind of original content
As said, all the great things Oral history can be done - outside of
Wikipedia. And what local Wikipedians like to do with it, will be
decided in the community.
Kind regards
Ziko
2012/2/25 Castelo michelcastelobra...@gmail.com:
On 25-02-2012 15:58, Michael Peel wrote:
Actually, Wikipedia sort
Leave the use of historical sources to historians, and then cite from
their books. That's what historians are for.
Kind regards
Ziko
2012/2/24 Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com:
On 2/23/12 7:29 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote:
On Thursday 23 February 2012 01:10 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 24-02-2012 07:48, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
Leave the use of historical sources to historians, and then cite from
their books. That's what historians are for.
Kind regards
Ziko
Ziko,
there's a lack of historians writing books outside Europe/US, specially
on some traditional oral history. They
Those people who would like to write on Wikipedia about any subject
can write a book or pdf about it. It does not have to be a scholarly
work in every aspect. And then, the Wikipedia in language X can decide
that it accepts this kind of literature as reliable. (Those various
standards are not
On 24-02-2012 23:18, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
Those people who would like to write on Wikipedia about any subject
can write a book or pdf about it. It does not have to be a scholarly
work in every aspect. And then, the Wikipedia in language X can decide
that it accepts this kind of literature as
On Thursday 23 February 2012 01:10 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Splitting this off, Achal, I hope that's OK :)
There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for instance,
which highlights some of the interpretive problems you raise:
On 2/23/12 7:29 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote:
On Thursday 23 February 2012 01:10 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Splitting this off, Achal, I hope that's OK :)
There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for
instance,
which highlights some of the interpretive problems you raise:
Splitting this off, Achal, I hope that's OK :)
There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for instance,
which highlights some of the interpretive problems you raise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/**
23 matches
Mail list logo
