Re: [Wikimedia-l] new report on Wikipedia sources
I so appreciate your thoughtful note, Ocaasi :) The chart is meant be a little provocative - a thought experiment based on an application of current policies to new media like Twitter and YouTube - and I should add that I'm not asserting that just because something is secondary or primary doesn't mean it should be seen by editors as reliable. This is the good thing about the RS (reliable sources) policies right now - there are constant reminders that secondary sources are preferable but that this characteristic isn't sufficient to determine whether something is reliable or not. More below... On Aug 10, 2012, at 3:18 PM, Ocaasi Ocaasi wrote: > *sorry, my last response was so full of confusing errors I've rewritten it* > > > Heather, > > Thanks for a fascinating read. You managed to capture the crazy, chaotic, > collaborative world we sometimes inhabit, especially during events like the > Egyptian Revolution. In all, it was a truly fascinating and consuming event > to be a part of, and it got me briefly hooked on the rush of working articles > on 'current events', an area many editors avoid due to the flood of attention > those articles receive and the challenge of finding seasoned secondary > sources. Working on that article with EgyptianLiberal and Lihaas and > Abrazame and SilverSeren and others truly felt like we were relaying messages > to the rest of the world as events unfolded. That might be slightly > grandiose but I think it's not that far off given how often the Wikipedia > article was used as a go-to source for information about what was happening. > > I'm very much interested by your page 50 chart on using social media as > primary and secondary sources, respectively. The notion that a re-tweet by a > journalist, a photo of a political cartoon in a rally, or amateur video > footage on NYTimes website qualifies as a secondary source will probably rub > many editors the wrong way. What is likely lacking in the mere republishing > of that type of primary content is an indication that it has been vetted, > fact-checked, or otherwise investigated through the typical channels which > work towards ensuring reliable media reports. Certainly. I'm not suggesting that a retweet necessarily means that it has been verified etc, but on the other hand, the medium itself is not a sufficient rationale for saying that it has *not* been verified. Just because its on Twitter, in other words, doesn't mean it hasn't been verified -- in the same way that just because its on the New York Times doesn't necessarily mean its true (hint: WMDs). Following this logic, then, if it is possible for there to be reliable Tweets on Twitter, how can we use Wikipedia's methods for determining reliability using the secondary vs primary source analogy (which is not in and of itself the only way of determining whether someone is accurate or not, but it is one way of helping us to determine what reliable experts believe happened)? One could argue that the process that a "traditional" journalist follows in choosing which sources to quote during a rapidly evolving news story equates with the process of choosing which sources to retweet in the coverage of a particular event. > If a journalist retweets a message from the ground, did s/he confirm that > the original poster was where and who he said he was (if we know either of > those details)? We don't always know these details, but as with media reports used for the 2011 Egyptian revolution article, editors verify sources using whatever means available to them -- for example by finding two sources that say the same thing. Traditional journalists sometimes withhold the identity of their sources, singling out an identifying characteristic that will keep their source anonymous but prove to the audience their expertise. For example, the phrase: "a source from the White House who would prefer not to be named" might be used in a story about the president of the united states. The source's position in relation to the subject is used here to warrant their expertise. > Perhaps the retweeter is just acting in that sense as only an amplifier > rather than a journalist. I definitely agree that you'd need to look at the reputation/goals of the Tweeter, but using the example of NPR journalist, Andy Carvin again, there might be little difference between a journalist telling us what is happening using local expert sources to tell the story vs a retweeter (who might also be a journalist) retweeting someone (or in textual terms, perhaps just quoting them?) They are certainly amplifying the voice of the Tweeter but doesn't this have the same effect as any traditional news article in which a source is quoted? > The picture of a political cartoon in a rally could be considered a secondary > source, but for what exactly? That the cartoon > was present in at least one protest? A more valuable secondary source would > be able to
Re: [Wikimedia-l] new report on Wikipedia sources
*sorry, my last response was so full of confusing errors I've rewritten it* Heather, Thanks for a fascinating read. You managed to capture the crazy, chaotic, collaborative world we sometimes inhabit, especially during events like the Egyptian Revolution. In all, it was a truly fascinating and consuming event to be a part of, and it got me briefly hooked on the rush of working articles on 'current events', an area many editors avoid due to the flood of attention those articles receive and the challenge of finding seasoned secondary sources. Working on that article with EgyptianLiberal and Lihaas and Abrazame and SilverSeren and others truly felt like we were relaying messages to the rest of the world as events unfolded. That might be slightly grandiose but I think it's not that far off given how often the Wikipedia article was used as a go-to source for information about what was happening. I'm very much interested by your page 50 chart on using social media as primary and secondary sources, respectively. The notion that a re-tweet by a journalist, a photo of a political cartoon in a rally, or amateur video footage on NYTimes website qualifies as a secondary source will probably rub many editors the wrong way. What is likely lacking in the mere republishing of that type of primary content is an indication that it has been vetted, fact-checked, or otherwise investigated through the typical channels which work towards ensuring reliable media reports. If a journalist retweets a message from the ground, did s/he confirm that the original poster was where and who he said he was (if we know either of those details)? Perhaps the retweeter is just acting in that sense as only an amplifier rather than a journalist. The picture of a political cartoon in a rally could be considered a secondary source, but for what exactly? That the cartoon was present in at least one protest? A more valuable secondary source would be able to make a broader claim that, for example, a particular photo was an 'iconic' image of the protests. Merely capturing one instance probably does not provide the benefits that we expect from secondary sources, namely fact-checking, and most importantly some context. I think the same concerns would apply to an NYTimes republishing of an amateur video. Mainstream news media wants to be 'social' these days, yet I do not think they have yet solved the puzzle of what their role should be with respect to ireports, tweets, on-the-ground cellphone footage, etc. Last, I just want to acknowledge the particular vulnerability one feels from having an ethnographer evaluate their heat-of-the-moment comments. You were indeed fair, but even with Wikipedia's wide-open transparency, it's a little uncomfortable to be the *subject* of the reports rather than the one who summarizes them ;) --Ocaasi ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] new report on Wikipedia sources
Heather, Thanks for a fascinating read. You managed to capture the crazy, chaotic, collaborative world we sometimes inhabit, especially during events like the Egyptian Revolution. In all, it was a truly fascinating and consuming event to be a part of, and it got me briefly hooked on the rush of working articles on 'current events', an area I've many editors avoid due to the flood of attention they receive and the challenge of finding seasoned secondary sources. Working on that article with EgyptianLiberal and Lihaas and Abrahzame and SilverSeren and others truly felt like we were relaying messages to the rest of the world as events unfolded. That might be slightly grandiose but I think it's not that far off given how often the Wikipedia article was used as a go-to source for information about what was happening. I'm very much interested by your page 50 chart on using social media as primary and secondary sources, respectively. The notion that--a re-tweet by a journalist, a photo of a political cartoon in a rally, or amateur video footage on NYTimes website--will probably rub many editors the wrong way. What is lacking in the mere republishing of that type of primary content is an indication that it has been vetted, fact-checked, or otherwise investigated through the typical channels which work towards ensuring reliable media reports. If a journalist retweets a message from the ground, did he confirm that the original poster was where and who he said he was (if we know either of those details). Perhaps the retweeter is just acting in that sense as only an amplifier rather than a journalist. The picture of a political cartoon in a rally could be considered a secondary source, but for what exactly? That the cartoon was present in at least one protest? A true secondary source would be able to make a broader claim that, for example, a particular photo was an 'iconic' image of the protests. Merely capturing one instance does not provide the benefits that we expect from secondary sources, namely fact-checking, and perspective. I think the same concerns would apply to an NYTimes republishing of an amateur video. Mainstream news media wants to social these days, yet I do not think they have yet solved the puzzle of what their role should be with respect to ireports, tweets, on-the-ground cellphone footage, etc. Last, I just want to acknowledge the particular vulnerability one feels from having an ethnographer evaluate their heat-of-the-moment comments. You were indeed fair, but even with Wikipedia's wide-open transparency, it's a little uncomfortable to be the *subject* of the reports rather than the one who summarizes them ;) Cheers, Jake Orlowitz Wikipedia editor: Ocaasi http://enwp.org/User:Ocaasi wikioca...@yahoo.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
