In my opinion (and I'm not in charge, obviously), the issue with CZ as a source in a paper isn't accuracy or prevalence of references. While an approved CZ article will be well written, accurate, and well referenced and cited and overall wonderful, there are some cases where it's not the best source. There exist lots of cases where CZ articles will be trustworthy references, certainly more cases than CZ articles.
Here's a demo of what I'm talking about:
Event X occurs (whether it's an experiment or a historical battle or whatever doesn't matter) Person A observes the event, or collects data on the event and publishes it (PubA1). Others conduct similar experiments or write similar accounts of Event X (PubA2...An) (all of these are primary sources) Person B reads PubA1, PubA2, etc, and comments on them in another paper or a book (PubB1...PubBn) (secondary sources) Person C writes [[Event X]]. He/she can draw on all the PubAs and all the PubBs. That makes us at best a secondary source, and more likely a tertiary source.
Because of the "No Original Research" rule, no CZ article can ever be a primary source. In a lot of settings, people writing research papers should be referring to only primary and secondary sources, since they are essentially creating a secondary source (combining accounts, comparing and contrasting to analyze events and uncovering trends). Therefore a tertiary source isn't the best way to go. In a lot of circumstances, that doesn't matter, and CZ would then make a great resource. There is a proposal (on the forums) to host primary and secondary source papers in much the same way that Wikimedia Commons hosts free images. There is no way to keep the "No Original Research" rule and have Citizendium (CZ) be a primary or secondary source.
Zach Pruckowski
On Oct 17, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Susan Awbrey wrote: Hi,
I think Christoph meant to send this to the list. Susan
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:24:45 -0400
From: "Wildgruber, Christoph U." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Citizendium-l] Encyclopedia
Dear All,
I was going to ask almost exactely the same question!
Now I haven't been very active contributing to this list
but trust me, I am reading a lot of what all of you are
saying and I am really excited about trying to do it right
this time.
As a scientist doing neutron beam experiments
for more than 20 years I am sure looking forward to use
Citizendium for my work as well as I do plan to contribute
with the (narrow) field of my expertise.
When I read Zachary's email I had almost exactely the same
thought's Susan had. Citizendium is supposed to do better
than Wikipedia and as far as I remember the comparison
'Nature' did between the Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia
came up with a suprisingly good result for Wikipedia.
While this may not be true in all areas I can imagine it's true for
many scientific topics.
I think Citizendium has to aim at a higher goal and
I have read many good suggestions and ideas from all of you
how to achieve this.
I just want to quickly give you a short list of objectives which I consider
essential for the success of Citizendium in the bigger pictures.
1) If I use encyclopedic information for a (e.g.) professional presentation
I want to feel comfortable to use 'Citizendium' as a source and don't
want to have the urge to cross check with a conventional encyclopædia
(Information like that can be pretty basic but it needs to be formal,
correct and deep enough)
2) Like conventional encyclopædias everybody who can read should be
able to use it. If an article uses language which I am not familiar with
I keep reading other articles until I know enough of what I want to know.
I agree this does sometimes require extra effort but it also gives
a real opportunity to learn something new.
3) References should be plenty, stable and cover different aspect of a subject.
(I remember that years ago when I got a brand new encyclopædia I was
dissappointed when I realized that - compared to the previous edition -
many articles had much fewer references, probably to save space)
What I really want to say with all that is that I completely agree with
Susan and my guess is that she absolutely right concerning her assumptions
who will be interested in contributing to this wonderful project.
Hope I didn't waste your time...
Christoph
Christoph U. Wildgruber
VISION Scientist
ORNL-SNS
Oak Ridge, TN
865-574-5378
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Susan Awbrey
Sent: Tue 17-Oct-06 8:15
To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Citizendium-l] Encyclopedia
Good Morning,
Zach's response to the encyclopedia question raises several questions for
me -- If we are creating an encyclopedia for high school educated people,
why are we doing that if Wikipedia already exists? What will be different
about citizendium? Will that charge be the best to attract a different
type of participant than Wikipedia (i.e., academics or experts) to assist
wtih the project? Susan
Dr. Susan M. Awbrey
Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education
520 O'Dowd Hall
Oakland University
Rochester, Michigan 48309
Phone: 248-370-2188
Fax: 248-370-2589 Dr. Susan M. Awbrey
Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education
520 O'Dowd Hall
Oakland University
Rochester, Michigan 48309
Phone: 248-370-2188
Fax: 248-370-2589 _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list
|
