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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
--
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
40 matches
Mail list logo
