You're welcome, Kathleen, It is frustrating, but but WP is not yet EB.
Paul On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:59 PM Paul S. Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Wikipedia POLICY > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:54 PM Paul S. Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Not "individual practices"; this is an English Wikipedia Policy: > > > > >Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or > > >Wikipedias in other languages) as sources. Also, do not use websites that > > >mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from > > >Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered > > >reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that > > >these sources support the content, then use them directly.[11] (There is > > >also a risk of circular reference/circular reporting when using a > > >Wikipedia article or derivative work as a source.) > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:24 PM Kathleen DeLaurenti > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all - > > > > > > Thanks for the responses. Regardless of our individual practices, I don't > > > see any good coming from Wikipedia positively asserting that it should > > > "never be cited," and that's the crux of my concern here. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Kathleen > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 1:17 PM Paul S. Wilson <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> I have never considered user-generated content on Wikipedia to be more > > >> than what librarians call a "discovery service". > > >> > > >> Briefly skimming an article on a subject l may know little about, I > > >> invariably evaluate the sources rather than the text and hit the cited > > >> references. In my 15-year experience, even the weakest and most > > >> apparently biased articles have at least a few refs that lead to citable > > >> sources and larger literature. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 11:54 AM Merrilee Proffitt <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> I completely agree with Kathleen. I would assert that it is a lack of > > >>> nuance around the nature of information sources and the research task > > >>> at hand that has lead educators and others to wholesale "ban" the use > > >>> of Wikipedia. > > >>> > > >>> Whether or not a source can be utilized in a research context depends > > >>> on the researcher, and what information they are supporting with the > > >>> citation. For my middle school daughter doing some investigation on an > > >>> element in the periodic table (as she has been doing this week), the > > >>> Wikipedia English article (or any encyclopedia article) is appropriate > > >>> for her. For a graduate student in chemistry this would not be > > >>> appropriate, but the grad student might (appropriately) cite Wikipedia > > >>> for some basic definitional stuff, just as they might cite a dictionary > > >>> or something similar. You see Wikipedia utilized appropriately in > > >>> citations all the time -- why would we discourage this? > > >>> > > >>> Having conversations about the veracity of online information is tough. > > >>> Wikipedia can be challenging because articles are at various levels of > > >>> development. To my mind, this makes it something that those of us > > >>> engaged in conversations around information literacy should steer > > >>> towards, rather than away from, because a) Wikipedia is widely utilized > > >>> in a variety of contexts and b) it is a great teaching tool for talking > > >>> about when you can trust information online and when you should steer > > >>> clear. But saying "no" to any information source without having a > > >>> discussion about it seems lazy. It definitely does not reflect the type > > >>> of discourse we should be having, especially now. > > >>> > > >>> I look forward to more discussion on this topic. > > >>> > > >>> Merrilee > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:02 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) > > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Twitter doesn't facilitate reasoned arguments. I suppose as usual the > > >>>> goal was to encourage greater use of the references and other > > >>>> meta-content of Wikipedia articles, which are excellent tools for > > >>>> critical thinking. > > >>>> > > >>>> Federico > > >>>> > > >>>> Kathleen DeLaurenti, 26/09/19 17:55: > > >>>> > Hi all - > > >>>> > > > >>>> > As a librarian who uses and supports Wikipedia, I wanted to bring up > > >>>> > some issues around the BuzzFeed article posted today about M-Journal > > >>>> > that has led to some messaging from the WikipediaUK twitter account > > >>>> > that > > >>>> > I find concerning. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to > > >>>> > bring this up, but I wasn't sure where else to reach out. > > >>>> > > > >>>> > For those who missed, a citation cite is not manufacturing journal > > >>>> > articles if a student submits a Wiki article so that it looks like an > > >>>> > "official" citation in their school research papers. > > >>>> > https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/wikipedia-fake-academic-journal?bftw&utm_term=4ldqpfp#4ldqpfp > > >>>> > > > >>>> > Clearly there are some nefarious potential uses here, but what's more > > >>>> > concerning is that the WikiUK twitter account has come forward > > >>>> > forcefully saying that Wikipedia shouldn't be cited in the > > >>>> > literature. > > >>>> > Period. > > >>>> > https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1177215917534711808 > > >>>> > > > >>>> > I work very hard to improve the cite through my courses and academic > > >>>> > advocacy as do many librarians. It's concern to me to see Wikipedia > > >>>> > undermining its own authority in such a public way in what appears > > >>>> > to be > > >>>> > a misguided attempt to deflect association with the MJournal site. > > >>>> > > > >>>> > Would welcome any insight or ideas on how to navigate this > > >>>> > discussion. > > >>>> > The entire M-Journal use case exists, imho, because we are still > > >>>> > battling for a critical (not blanket acceptance) view of Wiki as a > > >>>> > resources, and I find this kind of public statement to be very > > >>>> > damaging > > >>>> > to the hard work so many are doing to create a quality information > > >>>> > resource. > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> Libraries mailing list > > >>>> [email protected] > > >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Libraries mailing list > > >>> [email protected] > > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Libraries mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Libraries mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
