Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
<> As I've been pointing out, in bits and pieces, we don't have an alternative for BLPs. There simply is not some highly regarded, repository of veracity out there for this type of article. What we have is reliable secondary sources, and realiable primary source, which should and can be used in conjunction in a proper mix. I don't agree that newspaper articles are necessarily primary sources. If in a new story about Jane Fonda, they happen to mention that her father Henry was in such and such movie, that's not a primary source for that fact. It's obviously secondary. Just the fact that something appears in a newspaper or news magazine does not make it a primary source for that something. The primary source is the first fixed-media product which has stated that fact. The primary sources for Henry Fonda having been born in Omaha is *a* newspaper story, but subsequent mentions of that fact are not again primary, they are secondary. Apparently relying on previously published biographical details. A report on Peter Fonda's arrest may rely on the underlying published primary sources of his court papers. They may rely on an interview with him, which may or may be published. They may rely on some reporter, watching a filmed interview of him on the Tomorrow show. We don't necessarily know from just reading the newspaper whether they are reporting something as a primary source or secondary, unless they clearly state or infer that somehow. Such as, "I ask him blah blah blah and he said blah blah blee" That would make it primary. Jane Fonda's memoir is primary for what she herself experienced. But she says "I read in my father's biography where he said blah blah blah". Her repeating it and commenting upon it, does not make it again primary (provided it was in the first place). It makes it secondary. Again, primary statements in sources, are those which are appearing in a fixed media for the first time. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
I understand that there are history journals, which may or may not be doing the same type of "peer review" as the hard science journals do. But I was trying to address just the smaller point of "BLPs". My thesis being that there is no such thing as a "peer reviewed" biography in the same sense as a "peer reviewed" article on solid-state physics. It just doesn't exist. *That* later historians *comment* upon previous biographies may be true, but their comments, later, do not change the original paper or book. They are accretive only, not constructive or destructive. So my thesis being, that "peer review" really has no bearing on BLPs at all. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Carl Beckhorn wrote: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 04:58:01PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> Remembering that the thrust of this argument was specifically the use of >> Encyclopedia Brittanica, news magazines and newspapers. That doesn't >> necessarily sound like a low standard to me. Does it to you? > > It seems like a low standard to me: > > * Using encyclopedias for inline citations isn't a reliability problem, > but it's a symptom of shallow research and generally bad scholarship. > Citations should lead readers to sources that cover the cited > topic in greater depth than the WP article, rather than to other > encyclopedias which are unlikely to do so. > > * Building the majority of an article from newspaper sources is not > a reliability problem at the level of the individually-sourced > pieces of information. However, it's exactly the type of synthesis > of primary sources that has been decried for academic articles. > And, in many cases, it suffers from the bias of newsmedia to > cover things that will sell papers in much greater depth than > topics that are of less popular interest. Maybe you could specifically contrast two biographies I mentioned earlier? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_(inventor) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace Those are two very different types of articles in terms of the sources they use and the way they are constructed from those sources and the assumptions and inferences made by the editors of those articles. Discuss! :-) Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 04:58:01PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > Remembering that the thrust of this argument was specifically the use of > Encyclopedia Brittanica, news magazines and newspapers. That doesn't > necessarily sound like a low standard to me. Does it to you? It seems like a low standard to me: * Using encyclopedias for inline citations isn't a reliability problem, but it's a symptom of shallow research and generally bad scholarship. Citations should lead readers to sources that cover the cited topic in greater depth than the WP article, rather than to other encyclopedias which are unlikely to do so. * Building the majority of an article from newspaper sources is not a reliability problem at the level of the individually-sourced pieces of information. However, it's exactly the type of synthesis of primary sources that has been decried for academic articles. And, in many cases, it suffers from the bias of newsmedia to cover things that will sell papers in much greater depth than topics that are of less popular interest. - Carl ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:08 AM, wrote: > The real question however is, are these "peer reviewed" in the proper and > strict sense. > > There are also "Who's Who's" out there, some of them just accept and print > whatever the subject sends in. So the discovery of exactly what steps the > publication goes through is pertinent. > Just being the "member news" organ of an academic journal isn't a guarentee > that the material is reviewed for veracity. Agreed. But you also have to accept that there is a scale here. not everyone has professional historians poring over every detail of their lives. Some only have journalists or fellow colleagues or the like, who may get their information from family or others, or if the subject is still alive, from them directly. The intelligent reader needs to realise this, and keep in the back of their mind that only the really famous people have the details checked out in great detail (and to be honest, not always even then - some mistakes in biographical details for really famous people propagated without correction for some time, so other mistakes may still be out there). When reading the biographical details for a more obscure person, you do need to look at the sources and question them, but that doesn't necessarily mean remove the material. Just make clear that only one source gives (for example) the middle name, and this is that source. Other editors and readers need to use their own judgment from that point on. Or read about how to assess and judge and rank biographical sources for reliability. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:44 PM, wrote: > > In a message dated 1/7/2009 2:46:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, > dgoodma...@gmail.com writes: > > though most historical journals publish what amount to > articles with major biographical content on individuals, some of t hem > explicitly biographies. Similarly, journals in other fields often > publish at least a few biographies of major figures in that field.>> > > > > Names. > > I intend to content them directly to find out exactly what sort of > "checking" they do or don't. No comment on the history journals, but if the articles are written by professional historians for publication in peer-reviewed history journals, they do get checked. But that is historians writing history. I think what was meant here was obituaries for scientists, written by leading people in the scientific field (sometime several years in advanced) and then updated and published when needed. The responsibility of writing such an obituary is usually taken very seriously, but can include a lot of personal anecdotes and hagiography as well, while also containing biographical material not found elsewhere. For most scientists, that will be it. Of course, if the scientist is *really* famous, then proper historians and historians of science may arrive on the scene a bit later and write fuller biographies from scratch, doing proper historical research. Later still, for those whose names ring down the corridors of history, you get each generation attempting new biographies (this is people like Newton, Darwin and so on). The standard of the secondary biographical material and "professionalism" of the authors does seem to be directly related to the degree of fame of the scientist (or person) in question. There *is* a grave danger in writing biographies from scattered materials for people for which no official biography was written. A good example here is George Washington, of April Fool fame a few years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_(inventor) That is a really good example of an article cobbled together from a variety of sources, many of which could be argued over long and hard. The first one, for instance, is "Index on Kortrijk marriage records". Another one is "Pendergrast, Mark (1999). Uncommon Grounds: The history of coffee and how it transformed our world". Contemporary newspaper reports are used: ""Brooklyn Club Buys", The New York Times, February 25, 1927". His son's obituary is used: "George Washington Jr. is Dead; Invented an Engraving Device", The New York Times, December 27, 1966". And a link with the present is made "The last remnant of the brand survives in G. Washington's Seasoning & Broth, a sideline developed in 1938": "History – G. Washington's Seasoning & Broth. Homestat Farm, Ltd. Retrieved on March 31, 2007". Compare that with the current featured article on Alfred Russel Wallace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace In particular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#References A major biography, as you would expect: "Raby, Peter (2002). Alfred Russel Wallace: A Life". Four primary sources published by Wallace himself are also used, including an autobiography: "Wallace, Alfred Russel (1905). "My Life"". Some general and specific science history sources: "Raby, Peter (1996). Bright Paradise: Victorian Scientific Travellers" and "Bowler, Peter J.; Iwan Rhys Morus (2005). Making Modern Science". Finally, a reference to a recent paper, ensuring that things are reasonably up-to-date: "Tuen, A. A.; Das, I. (2005). "Wallace in Sarawak—50 years later: Proceedings of an International Conference on Biogeography and Biodiversity. Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation"". So as you can see, the sources available and the way they are used, varies depending on the person. People vary greatly in their notability and fame and the amount that others write about them, and that impacts what can be done with an article on them. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
The real question however is, are these "peer reviewed" in the proper and strict sense. There are also "Who's Who's" out there, some of them just accept and print whatever the subject sends in. So the discovery of exactly what steps the publication goes through is pertinent. Just being the "member news" organ of an academic journal isn't a guarentee that the material is reviewed for veracity. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:45 PM, David Goodman wrote: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:04 PM, wrote: >> In a message dated 1/7/2009 12:08:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, >> dgoodma...@gmail.com writes: >> >> unless the fame is very recent, there almost >> invariably will be peer-reviewed articles discussing both his life and >> his specific career, and of course they should be included.>> >> >> >> - >> I have serious doubts that this is the case. >> Hard-cover biographies are not "peer-reviewed" whatsoever. >> And, as in my last message, I would be interested in what journals can be >> found that are "peer-reviewed" that only submit biographies. > > Hard cover bios from academic publishers are invariably peer reviewed, > usually by three consultants, as well as the usually expert editorial > staff. > As for the use of popular biographies, one can be guided by the > reviews for them. > > I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed journals that publish only > biographies, though most historical journals publish what amount to > articles with major biographical content on individuals, some of t hem > explicitly biographies. Similarly, journals in other fields often > publish at least a few biographies of major figures in that field. What you tend to get in peer-reviewed science journals is the obituaries (not that these are peer-reviewed in the sense that the science papers are). There has also been a change in the last 25 years or so from journals that included "society" matters, such as obituaries of fellows of national society, and details of awards made by that society, and so on, to splitting the journals into a "proper" journal (for the science papers) and a "bulletin" for society news and obituaries and the like. There are some journals that *do* specialise in biographical material, but not much that I know of. One that I am aware of is the one where the Royal Society publishes material on its fellows: Official website is here: http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/120177/ Our article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographical_Memoirs_of_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society More on this is here: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=1728 The online version is here: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=1724 An absolute goldmine for sourcing material in articles about Royal Society fellows (well, the dead ones, that is). Many other major scientific societies also have similar resources. For example, the Royal College of Surgeons of England has the following resource called "Plarr's Lives of the Fellows Online": http://livesonline.rcseng.ac.uk/home.htm And for chemists, you have stuff like: "Biographical Database of the British Chemical Community, 1880-1970" http://www.open.ac.uk/ou5/Arts/chemists/index.htm I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Biographical material for scientists is out there and normally fairly easy to find, especially if an obituary was published in one of the leading journals, and failing that, one of the biographical databases will help. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Michael Bimmler wrote: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:13 AM, wrote: > > > Other than just nay-saying my opinions, with your own opinions, do you > have > > a *positive* opinion on the topic? > > Which is whether our BLP's in general suffer from "low citation quality" > ? > > > > There's a certain glamour in just nullifying someone else's position, but > I > > don't think that's going to propel us forward. > > > > > See, I am not going to express a general opinion on "citation quality is > low" or "citation quality is high" because I would need to closely look at > a > few random BLP and a few "high-profile" BLP articles and (for me > personally) > assess every source there to be able to make a statement on that. > > If you want a "positive opinion" on that: I do not having a problem with > Wikipedia being "academic" at all, indeed I very much support this. Mind > you, this doesn't mean that we should try to write as"academically and > unintelligibly (to the general public) as possible, but I'm referring to > the > sources we use etc. - I think we should not lower our standards just to > attract more readers. I think it's important to note, however, that "academic coverage" is not and should not be a prerequisite for something being covered in Wikipedia. Thinking of Wikipedia as an academic project in the exclusive sense, where we would remove things which are otherwise notable but not covered by the topical equivalent of peer reviewed primary and secondary sources, is a mistake. Not taking advantage of legitimate good academic source material out there is a mistake. Not writing articles in an encyclopedic manner is a mistake. But trying to turn this into an academic project is an equally bad mistake. We're not an academic project - the core goal of the project is open contribution and collaboration. The statement "We should improve quality" is not equivalent to "We should become an academic project". -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
In a message dated 1/7/2009 2:46:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, dgoodma...@gmail.com writes: though most historical journals publish what amount to articles with major biographical content on individuals, some of t hem explicitly biographies. Similarly, journals in other fields often publish at least a few biographies of major figures in that field.>> Names. I intend to content them directly to find out exactly what sort of "checking" they do or don't. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
In a message dated 1/7/2009 2:46:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, dgoodma...@gmail.com writes: Hard cover bios from academic publishers are invariably peer reviewed, usually by three consultants, as well as the usually expert editorial staff.>> - Hard cover bios from commericial publishers are not "peer reviewed" and I seriously doubt even academic publishers submit them to "peer" review in the proper sense. They are sometimes sent as gratis copies to editors of small magazines and so on, to solicit back-cover comments. But there is no requirement, not intent, to modify the contents of the project *based* on any of those comments. The in-house editors are not validating or verifying the contents of the work, they are checking the English usage and so on, just as editors at commercial houses do. Looking for obvious blunders, is not the same as a critique on the thesis itself. That's not the same as "peer" review at all, in the sense that we are using it for the hard sciences. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
Hard cover bios from academic publishers are invariably peer reviewed, usually by three consultants, as well as the usually expert editorial staff. As for the use of popular biographies, one can be guided by the reviews for them. I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed journals that publish only biographies, though most historical journals publish what amount to articles with major biographical content on individuals, some of t hem explicitly biographies. Similarly, journals in other fields often publish at least a few biographies of major figures in that field. On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:04 PM, wrote: > > In a message dated 1/7/2009 12:08:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, > dgoodma...@gmail.com writes: > > unless the fame is very recent, there almost > invariably will be peer-reviewed articles discussing both his life and > his specific career, and of course they should be included.>> > > > - > I have serious doubts that this is the case. > Hard-cover biographies are not "peer-reviewed" whatsoever. > And, as in my last message, I would be interested in what journals can be > found that are "peer-reviewed" that only submit biographies. > > Will Johnson > > > > **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making > headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
In a message dated 1/7/2009 12:08:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, dgoodma...@gmail.com writes: unless the fame is very recent, there almost invariably will be peer-reviewed articles discussing both his life and his specific career, and of course they should be included.>> - I have serious doubts that this is the case. Hard-cover biographies are not "peer-reviewed" whatsoever. And, as in my last message, I would be interested in what journals can be found that are "peer-reviewed" that only submit biographies. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
In a message dated 1/7/2009 4:21:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, wilydoppelgan...@gmail.com writes: Of course, there are some. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alar_Toomre cites a few peer reviewed papers, although one is by the subject. But that's still only ~10% of the total references, and the biography mostly recounts the science he's done.>> - I think in general biographical tidbits are not reviewed in the sense that "peer review" is trying to project. In a paper on "Mitochrondrial Influences of Bat-Wing Geese population studies..." I don't think any of the *peers* are really *verifying* themselves statements like "Mr Brown was born in Topeka and graduated from Bradford University in 1982..." What they are verifying, either with their own knowledge or by experimentation or consultation, is the *science* in the papers, not the biographical snippets. So my point, in this thread, is that I don't know of any actual "peer-reviewed" biographical journals, who has biographies of living persons, and whose main or sole point is biography. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
In a message dated 1/7/2009 1:25:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, mbimm...@gmail.com writes: Mind you, this doesn't mean that we should try to write as"academically and unintelligibly (to the general public) as possible, but I'm referring to the sources we use etc. - I think we should not lower our standards just to attract more readers.>> Remembering that the thrust of this argument was specifically the use of Encyclopedia Brittanica, news magazines and newspapers. That doesn't necessarily sound like a low standard to me. Does it to you? Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
I do not agree on this separation. What scientists (or artists, or whatever) are known for is their work. Just as we discuss the events of a politicians career in the bio articles on them, we discuss the work of a scientist or an artist in the article on him. The content rule should be that the material should be pertinent to the notability of the individual. Where the work is individual, and the material is not too extensive, the bio article is the place. Where it is very extensive then there needs to be separate articles. What we need to do in most cases is to avoid discussing the entirety of a general subject in the article on an individual who made a notable contribution to some specific corner of it. In the article mentioned just above, is not the place for the general discussion of galaxy formation. It is the place to discuss his specific work on it. After all, a person's work is why we want to know about them Furthermore, for any person who is actually famous, as distinct from merely notable, unless the fame is very recent, there almost invariably will be peer-reviewed articles discussing both his life and his specific career, and of course they should be included. For most individual bios, however, we do not have this amount of information about the person. On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > Wily D wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:14 PM, wrote: >> >>> The vast majority of citations >>> are to newspapers, new magazines, and online news and opinion sites, >>> while very few are to peer-reviewed publications. >>> >>> Can you point to any source in a BLP which comes from a "peer-reviewed >>> publication" ? >>> I mean any of them at all? >>> >> Of course, there are some. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alar_Toomre >> cites a few peer reviewed papers, although one is by the subject. But >> that's still only ~10% of the total references, and the biography >> mostly recounts the science he's done. >> > > That seems reasonable enough. A biographical article is about the > person, and not the place for a detailed explanation of his ideas. > Where there is no controversy around someone's personal life any number > of directories or the like should satisfy the need for sourcing. > Controversies around someone's scientific views is best discussed in the > article dealing with that idea. Sourcing standards there will > necessarily be different. > > Ec > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
Wily D wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:14 PM, wrote: > >> The vast majority of citations >> are to newspapers, new magazines, and online news and opinion sites, >> while very few are to peer-reviewed publications. >> >> Can you point to any source in a BLP which comes from a "peer-reviewed >> publication" ? >> I mean any of them at all? >> > Of course, there are some. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alar_Toomre > cites a few peer reviewed papers, although one is by the subject. But > that's still only ~10% of the total references, and the biography > mostly recounts the science he's done. > That seems reasonable enough. A biographical article is about the person, and not the place for a detailed explanation of his ideas. Where there is no controversy around someone's personal life any number of directories or the like should satisfy the need for sourcing. Controversies around someone's scientific views is best discussed in the article dealing with that idea. Sourcing standards there will necessarily be different. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:14 PM, wrote: > < cbeckh...@fastmail.fm writes: > > The vast majority of citations > are to newspapers, new magazines, and online news and opinion sites, > while very few are to peer-reviewed publications. >> > > Can you point to any source in a BLP which comes from a "peer-reviewed > publication" ? > I mean any of them at all? > > Will Johnson > Of course, there are some. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alar_Toomre cites a few peer reviewed papers, although one is by the subject. But that's still only ~10% of the total references, and the biography mostly recounts the science he's done. Brian ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:13 AM, wrote: > Other than just nay-saying my opinions, with your own opinions, do you have > a *positive* opinion on the topic? > Which is whether our BLP's in general suffer from "low citation quality" ? > > There's a certain glamour in just nullifying someone else's position, but I > don't think that's going to propel us forward. > > See, I am not going to express a general opinion on "citation quality is low" or "citation quality is high" because I would need to closely look at a few random BLP and a few "high-profile" BLP articles and (for me personally) assess every source there to be able to make a statement on that. If you want a "positive opinion" on that: I do not having a problem with Wikipedia being "academic" at all, indeed I very much support this. Mind you, this doesn't mean that we should try to write as"academically and unintelligibly (to the general public) as possible, but I'm referring to the sources we use etc. - I think we should not lower our standards just to attract more readers. Michael -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
Other than just nay-saying my opinions, with your own opinions, do you have a *positive* opinion on the topic? Which is whether our BLP's in general suffer from "low citation quality" ? There's a certain glamour in just nullifying someone else's position, but I don't think that's going to propel us forward. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:35 AM, wrote: > < cbeckh...@fastmail.fm writes: > > That's exactly my point. There is no lack of academic analysis of > politicians, of artists, etc. But we do not seem to use any of it. > > For example, I can find numerous articles on George W. Bush on JStor. > And once he is out of office there will be no lack of biogaphies written > to analyze his presidency. >> > > First to attack your second point, why does W have to be out of office to > have a biography ? There are several books about Bush out, which analyze > his > presidency. > Mhm. His presidency hasn't even ended yet. So the only thing we could possibly find would be books on, say, the first term of his presidency or "the first term of his presidency + 2 years of his second presidency" and still, I would be rather reluctant to cite these... If you want to seriously review a thing such as a presidency, you will always want to have at least some distance to it, for various reasons (hint: most archive material from the Bush administration is not accessible at all yet). > I do not (in any way) feel that "academics" have any toe-hold on > "biography". In fact, professional writers, tend not to be in academia at > all, and they > write prose that is much more interesting (apparently from their book > sales) > then academics. Oh sure. Moreover, what the Sun writes is much more interesting (apparently from their newspaper sales) than what the Guardian or the Times write. So let's rely on the Sun for our future encyclopedic coverage. > > We are not an academic encyclopedia anymore than we are a science one, a > religion one or a fancruft one. In trying to represent the world as it is, > we > must use what resources are present. In general, for biographies, > newspapers > and hard-cover biographies, are much more *present* and readable than > anything in a humanities journal. We're not trying to be technical as we > can be, > we're also trying to attract more readership. > We're trying to be as serious, neutral and fact-based as we can. We're not a tabloid, we don't want to attract more readership by having the most juiciest stories, irrespective of their accuracy respectively verifiability. > > So again it's a balance. But by *ALL* means, if you have peer-reviewed > biographical material, add it. However "peer review" is not necessarily > the > standard for all articles. TV Guide is not "peer reviewed" and yet we > assume > it's a reliable source for what's on TV > > Yes. But we don't assume TV Guide's description of the movie "W" )or any documentary on the topic) to be a reliable source of analysis of Bush's presidency. Michael -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
<> First to attack your second point, why does W have to be out of office to have a biography ? There are several books about Bush out, which analyze his presidency. Secondly, are you actually willing to admit that you are complaining about something you're not willing to fix yourself? YOU my friend, if you can cite all these articles from Jstor, then do so! I personally have no access to Jstor, and I assume that the vast majority of our editors probably don't either. But regardless of that, I'm sure people cite what they can access and think is relevant. I do not (in any way) feel that "academics" have any toe-hold on "biography". In fact, professional writers, tend not to be in academia at all, and they write prose that is much more interesting (apparently from their book sales) then academics. We are not an academic encyclopedia anymore than we are a science one, a religion one or a fancruft one. In trying to represent the world as it is, we must use what resources are present. In general, for biographies, newspapers and hard-cover biographies, are much more *present* and readable than anything in a humanities journal. We're not trying to be technical as we can be, we're also trying to attract more readership. So again it's a balance. But by *ALL* means, if you have peer-reviewed biographical material, add it. However "peer review" is not necessarily the standard for all articles. TV Guide is not "peer reviewed" and yet we assume it's a reliable source for what's on TV Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Brian wrote: > We can use a 100 year old version of EB as a seed for hundreds or thousands > of articles, but we cannot cite them as a source. To change topic again... Anyone interested in a version of this discussion on the mailing list? Or even over there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism#Another_view.2C_and_a_plea_for_guidance Hmm. That talk page needs archiving. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:14:52PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > Can you point to any source in a BLP which comes from a "peer-reviewed > publication" ? I mean any of them at all? That's exactly my point. There is no lack of academic analysis of politicians, of artists, etc. But we do not seem to use any of it. For example, I can find numerous articles on George W. Bush on JStor. And once he is out of office there will be no lack of biogaphies written to analyze his presidency. We could argue about whether these journals and biographies are "peer-reviewed" but they are certaily of a higher caliber of scholarship than the average MSNBC web page. If, as you have argued, our role is to wait for other scholars to decide what's important, and then report that, why don't we do so in BLPs? Why not wait a few years for analysis to emerge before we report on things? - Carl ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
We can use a 100 year old version of EB as a seed for hundreds or thousands of articles, but we cannot cite them as a source. lol? On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Carl Beckhorn wrote: > (Subject changed, since this is drifting from the original topic.) > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 09:46:53PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > > I don't see why you claim on the one hard that the standards are lax, and > > then you say "Encarta and Encyclopedia Brittanica". > > You've lost me. Are you claiming that Brittanica is not a reliable > source? > > I would say it is an unsuitable source and we shouldn't be using it. > Imagine if I included a reference to Encarta in the next research paper > I write... > > > The standards for sources on BLPs are not lax imho, they are stronger > > than anything else. Perhaps if you made your point more clearly. > > The standards are stronger in the sense that a higher percentage of > sentences have an inline citation attached, but the average quality of > those inline citations is often very low. The vast majority of citations > are to newspapers, new magazines, and online news and opinion sites, > while very few are to peer-reviewed publications. > > We do not write BLP articles, in general, by starting with someone > else's explanatory framework and fleshing it out with some references. > Because that would require a pre-existing explanatory framework, which > will not develop until after the person's death. > > Instead, we assemble a mishmash of random news stories into what we hope > is a coherent article. Or we write a coherent article and then go back > and source it from a mishmash of cherry-picked news stories. > > This practice directly contradicts arguments that other articles cannot > be written by arranging an original synthesis of material from primary > sources. I don't accept "but some of those newspaper stories are > secondary sources" as a strong objection to my argument here. > > > My point is specifically primary versus secondary, not any other point. > > Dividing sources arbitrarily into primary/secondary ignores many of the > actual distinctions good researchers make between sources. For example, > we should not be debating whether a particular story in the New York > Times qualifies as a primary source or secondary source. Instead, we > should ask whether the type of analysis done by the New York Times is > appropriate for the sort of claim that we are making in the article. > > - Carl > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- You have successfully failed! ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
<> Apples and oranges. It is typical that hard science research papers refer to journal articles, and other published research papers. It is typical that encyclopedia articles refer to other works of a similar type, such as other encyclopedias. This is not a lower form of citation, it is merely the normative behaviour. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
<> Can you point to any source in a BLP which comes from a "peer-reviewed publication" ? I mean any of them at all? Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
(Subject changed, since this is drifting from the original topic.) On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 09:46:53PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > I don't see why you claim on the one hard that the standards are lax, and > then you say "Encarta and Encyclopedia Brittanica". > You've lost me. Are you claiming that Brittanica is not a reliable source? I would say it is an unsuitable source and we shouldn't be using it. Imagine if I included a reference to Encarta in the next research paper I write... > The standards for sources on BLPs are not lax imho, they are stronger > than anything else. Perhaps if you made your point more clearly. The standards are stronger in the sense that a higher percentage of sentences have an inline citation attached, but the average quality of those inline citations is often very low. The vast majority of citations are to newspapers, new magazines, and online news and opinion sites, while very few are to peer-reviewed publications. We do not write BLP articles, in general, by starting with someone else's explanatory framework and fleshing it out with some references. Because that would require a pre-existing explanatory framework, which will not develop until after the person's death. Instead, we assemble a mishmash of random news stories into what we hope is a coherent article. Or we write a coherent article and then go back and source it from a mishmash of cherry-picked news stories. This practice directly contradicts arguments that other articles cannot be written by arranging an original synthesis of material from primary sources. I don't accept "but some of those newspaper stories are secondary sources" as a strong objection to my argument here. > My point is specifically primary versus secondary, not any other point. Dividing sources arbitrarily into primary/secondary ignores many of the actual distinctions good researchers make between sources. For example, we should not be debating whether a particular story in the New York Times qualifies as a primary source or secondary source. Instead, we should ask whether the type of analysis done by the New York Times is appropriate for the sort of claim that we are making in the article. - Carl ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
